Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.58 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan vs Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu on 18 April, 1958
Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Rabindra Nath Samuel Dawson (supra) and in case of Madhavrao
Narayanrao Patwardhan (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
the defendant in support of his submission that the plaintiffs had not
satisfied the conditions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2016 01:03:37 :::
ppn 19 sa-453.16(j).doc
earlier proceedings not having been filed in good faith and not having
been prosecuted with due diligence is concerned, in my view since the
cause of action in both the suits were different, there is no merit in this
submission of the learned counsel for the defendant. The first appellate
Court rightly held that the cause of action for filing the second suit for
possession was based on Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act
and the suit could be filed 12 years from the date of the decree passed by
the learned District Court in the earlier round of litigation.
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
In support of this
submission, learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequira
Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through Lrs.,
reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 and more particularly on paragraphs 53, 71
to 74 and 77 thereof.