Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan And Ors. vs Om Press Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 December, 1959
Mehar Singh J., taking into consideration the admitted fact that Ganesh Das was living only at a short distance from the house of the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not shown vigilance to entitle him to ask for the Court's indulgence. Ignorance per se is not sufficient to extend the period of limitation; it has to be linked with care and diligence on the part of the applicant and has to be disassociated from laches and negligence in pursuing the appeal. This is the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Firm Dittu Ram Eyedan v. Om Press Co., Ltd., AIR 1960 Punj. 335.
Section 42 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Faqira And Anr. vs Hardewa And Ors. on 22 December, 1927
The Full Bench decision in Faqira v. Hardewa, AIR 1928 All 172, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, does not support him. It is true, as observed by Sulaiman, J., that "a mere danger of multiplicity of suits is not sufficient for the dismissal of the whole appeal when it is not impossible to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against one set of the defendants". In the case before us, however, it is not the risk of multiplicity but the passage of a contradictory decree which is the overriding consideration.
1