JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was directed to pay batta by 3-7-1928. The case was taken up on that day and as the batta had not been paid the petition was dismissed. It is now argued for the appellant on the strength of S. Perumal Nadan v. Sivanamji Nacho (1915) 39 Mad. 583 and Muthu Chettiar v. Narayanan Chettiar (1928) 55 M.L.J. 274, that when time is given for the performance of any act till or by a certain date it includes that date also. These cases support his contention. Thus the court had no jurisdiction to pass the order of dismissal on 3rd July, 1928.
2. We must therefore allow the C.M.A. No. 547 of 1928 and remand the petition to the lower court for disposal; but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. We may observe that the petition we are remanding for disposal being an old one, it is very desirable that it should be disposed of as early as possible.