Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Chhutbai And Anr. vs Madanlal And Anr. on 5 May, 1989
In support of submission made by the learned
counsel for respondent, reference has been made to the
decision of Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan Vs.
M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 and in
case of Smt. Chhutbai & Another Vs. Madanlal & Another
reported in AIR 1989 MP 330. It is also submitted that the
conduct of the plaintiff should also be seen.
Oriental Aroma Chemical Indus.Ltd vs Gujarat Indisl.Devt.Corp.& Anr on 26 February, 2010
In support of his submissions, learned counsel
3
C.R.No. 44/2011
for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of
Supreme Court rendered in case of Oriental Aroma
Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial
Development Corporation & Another reported in 2010 (5)
SCC 459 and in case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai reported in
2012 Vol 5 SCC 157.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M.K. Prasad vs P.Arumugam on 30 July, 2001
In this
connection, reference has been made on a decision
4
C.R.No. 44/2011
rendered in case of M.K. Prasad Vs. Arumugam reported in
AIR 2001 SCC 2497. It is submitted that in any case, before
the decision on the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, the trial Court ought to have granted an
opportunity to the respondent to adduce evidence.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In support of submission made by the learned
counsel for respondent, reference has been made to the
decision of Supreme Court in case of N. Balakrishnan Vs.
M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 and in
case of Smt. Chhutbai & Another Vs. Madanlal & Another
reported in AIR 1989 MP 330. It is also submitted that the
conduct of the plaintiff should also be seen.
Smt. Urmila Devi vs Shri Deep Narayan Singh on 10 August, 2015
In the case of Urmila Bai Vs. Narayan, 1980 (1)
MPWN 183, a Bench of this Court has held that where the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
contested , there ought to be an inquiry as to whether, the
non-applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making
an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In the instant case, the trial Court without holding
any inquiry rejected the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and held the application under Order 9 Rule 13
of the Code Of Civil Procedure as barred by limitation. The
aforesaid order has been set-aside in appeal by the lower
Appellate Court. Thus, the Lower Appellate Court has failed
to appreciate that the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act was rejected without holding any inquiry. The
order passed by the Lower Appellate Court suffers from
procedural irregularity as well as illegality. Therefore, the
5
C.R.No. 44/2011
same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly
quashed. The trial Court is directed to hold an inquiry before
deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
and thereafter shall proceed to deal with the application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in
accordance with law.
1