Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Haji Ramjan Ali vs Hafiz Abdul Gaffiur And Ors. on 21 November, 1927

Seshaingar Rajagopalan vs Unique Assurance Co. Ltd. on 13 June, 1939

His Lordship was of opinion that Article 164, Limitation Act, did apply to such an application but he followed the decision of Pearson J., in Rmjan Ali v. Haflz Abdul Gaffar on the ground that the matter was not free from doubt and on the ground that the view of Pearson J., had prevailed in this Court for more than 10 years. The question whether Article 164, Limitation Act, will govern the present motion or not however does not arise for decision in the present case as the application has been made within 30 days of the decree. I do not propose therefore to express any opinion on this point in the present application. All I need say is that the present application is not barred by the law of limitation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abed Ali vs Prafulla Kumar Sen on 12 March, 1951

23. This case is directly in point and deals with the period of limitation for applications such as the present. Pearson, J. followed the Bench decision to which I have made reference and came to the conclusion that applications to set aside ex parte decrees on the Original Side were not made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Of course if they were not made under that rule it might well be said that the period of limitation laid down by Article 164 of the Limitation Act would not apply because the periods of limitation prescribed by that Act apply to proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1