Sheikh Adam vs Balaji Krishnaji on 14 February, 1908
Both the Code and the Act being co-temporary legislation providing for procedure, must be read together just in the same way tha't, as held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sundar Koer v. Sham Krishen (1906) L.R. 34 I.A. 21, the Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure must be read together, being co-temporary Acts. Accordingly Section 582, which is made applicable to second appeals by Section 587, being mentioned in Article 175C, the provisions of both must be read together and applied to such appeals. Otherwise we should have to presume that the Legislature has either through over-sight or for some deliberate purpose omitted to prescribe the same period of limitation in the case of second appeals that they have prescribed in the case of first appeals by Article 175C. The omission of the Legislature to make express mention of second appeals in Article 175C is reasonably accounted for by the fact that as Section 587 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code has made Section 582 applicable to those appeals and Section 582 was in terms referred to in Article 175C it was thought unnecessary to mention them. And it must be so seeing that so far as this question of limitation is concerned) there is no conceivable reason why the Legislature would have prescribed a shorter period in the case of first appeals and a longer in the case of second appeals, by relegating the latter to Article 178.