Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Jhotu Lal Ghose v. Ganouri Sahu Opposite Party.

    Ali Imam, J.:— It has been pointed out to us that the Munsif, in holding as he did that the petition for restoration was not barred by limitation, had in fact fallen into an error, and that the facts would disclose that the petition was so barred; but we do not regard this contention as of any substance inasmuch as even if it be conceded that the Munsif had fallen, into an error, be it of law or of fact, this is not an error in the exercise of jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. This petition is rejected with costs.

    2. Roe, J.:— I agree. Thera is no substance in the suggestion that the Munsif had no jurisdiction because the case was barred by limitation.

    3. The question whether or not it was barred by limitation was a question specifically within the province of the Court to decide.

    V.S/R.K

    4. Application rejected.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Jhotu Lal Ghose v. Ganouri Sahu Opposite Party.
    (Mar 22, 1918)