Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.15 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 32 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sri Tankala Appalaswamy Gari Samba ... vs Gopasundara Sabatho on 22 December, 1961
2. What is argued by Mr. T. R. Mani learned Counsel for the petitioner, is 'that it is not Order 21, Rule 106, Civil Procedure Code, that would apply, but it is only Order 21, Rule 105 that would apply. In so far as the Madras amendment states that the pro-visions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1908 will apply to applications under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, it is that provision which should be held applicable. This is because in the Central Rule 106, there is no such provision. If that be so it is not because of repugnancy between the Central Code and the Madras amendment. on the contrary, it is a clear case of unoccupied field being occupied by the State Legislature. As to the reason for this specific provision it can be gathered by a reading of the decision in Samba Murthi v. Sabatho . That ruling clearly shows that the inherent powers cannot be invoked. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Section 5 of the Limitation Act says that the provisions of this section cannot be made applicable to applications arising under Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, this being strictly an application not under Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, but only to set aside an exparte dismissal during execution proceedings, it is Order 9 that would apply.
1