Bombay High Court
Fulvahu vs Goculdas Valabdas on 27 March, 1885
Equivalent citations: (1885)ILR 9BOM275
JUDGMENT C. Sargent, C.J.
1. We approve of the ruling of Mr. Justice Wilson in Bhoyrub Dass Toburry v. Doman Thakoor I.L.R. 5 Calc. 139. The period of limitation for an application under Sections 366 and 271 of the Code is unaltered by Act XII of 1879. There is no objection I think to the proposed order being made by a Judge in chambers. Whether he could conveniently deal with the question of costs under Section 366 might be open to doubt.
Bayley, J.
2. I concur. As Judge in chambers I was of opinion that the order applied for in this case should be granted. I felt doubtful,' however, as to whether I had power to make it, and, therefore, I referred the question to the Court.
3. That point being now settled, the alternative part of the summons will be made absolute.
4. The following order was made:"This Court doth order that the suit shak abate, and this Court doth set aside such order for abatement, and doth order that the name of the said L. W. G. Rivett-Carnac, administrator of the property and credits of the plaintiff Fulvahu, be entered in the places of the said Fulvahu on the record, and that the name of the said Dayal Mulji, the alleged executor of the said defendant Goculdas Valabdas (now deceased) and Gomtibai, the widow, and Cursandas, the son of the said Goculdas Valabdas, be entered on the record in the place of the said defendant."