Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)Nurul Hoda And Ors. vs Amir Hasan And Anr. on 31 July, 1972
In Nurul Hoda & Ors. (supra), Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as His Lordship then
was), speaking for the Full Bench, held that a decision setting aside an
abatement does not in any way effect any right accrued to the defendant
and, therefore, does not amount to a 'judgment'. No merits, in the
controversy between the parties, have been decided; the order merely
reopens the controversy.
Maria Flaviana Almeida vs Ramchandra Santuram Asavle on 9 March, 1938
In Maria Flaviana Almeida & Ors. 's case (supra), Chief Justice Beaumont
speaking for the Division Bench observed that an order setting aside an
abatement is really one in procedure. The party originally had a cause of
action which through no fault of their own came to an end by the death of
their opponent and the effect of setting aside the abatement is merely to
excuse delay in restoring the suit to an actionable condition. The Division
Bench held that the order setting aside an abatement does not effect the
merits of the dispute between the parties though it certainly determines a
right and, therefore, does not amount to a 'judgment'.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Chando Devi vs Municipal Committee, Delhi on 16 February, 1960
A Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, consisting of D. Faishaw and
G.L. Chopra, JJ, in Smt. Chando Devi's case (supra) has held that the order
setting aside the abatement of a suit or appeal is not a decision which
affects the merits of the question between the parties by determining some
right or liability in the suit. Such an order cannot be regarded as a
deciding a question materially in issue between the parties and directly
affecting the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, it would not
amount to a 'judgment'.
1