Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Babu Jotindra Nath Sanyal (for Babu Suresh Chandra Taluqdar) for the Appellant.
  • Dr. Radhabinode Pal and Babu Ramendra Mohan Majumdar (for Babu Premranjan Roy Choudhuri) for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Mukerji
  • Roy, JJ.
Acts
  • Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule I Limitation Act, of 1908.
  • Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule 1, Limitation Act,
  • Article 182 Schedule 1 Limitation Act
  • Article 179, Limitation Act,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Babu Jotindra Nath Sanyal (for Babu Suresh Chandra Taluqdar) for the Appellant.
  • Dr. Radhabinode Pal and Babu Ramendra Mohan Majumdar (for Babu Premranjan Roy Choudhuri) for the Respondents.
Judges
  • Mukerji
  • Roy, JJ.
Acts
  • Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule I Limitation Act, of 1908.
  • Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule 1, Limitation Act,
  • Article 182 Schedule 1 Limitation Act
  • Article 179, Limitation Act,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

One Radha Madhab Saha instituted Title Suit No. 754 of 1920 against Gohur Ali Bepari and others. The Munsif dismissed the suit on 30th August 1920. On appeal the District Judge allowed the suit on 29th March 1922. Some defendants preferred a second appeal to this Court; during the pendency of that appeal the plaintiff Radha Madhab Saha died.

The appellants in the second appeal obtained a rule to show cause why the abatement of the appeal resulting from the plaintiff's death should not be set aside and the plaintiff's heirs substituted. That rule was discharged on 3rd April 1925. The appeal was subsequently placed for hearing and on 21st May 1925 the Court made an order stating that "The sole respondent having died and no substitution having been made in his place, the appeal abates and is dismissed without costs as the respondent has not appeared." A decree in similar terms was drawn up and the appeal was disposed of by that decree.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the period of limitation under Article 182, Schedule I, Limitation Act runs from 21st May 1925 (the date the appeal was held to have abated and was dismissed) or from 29th March 1922 (the date on which the District Judge allowed the first appeal / the appellate decree).
  2. Whether an order declaring that an appeal has abated is a "decree or order" within the meaning of Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule I, Limitation Act (i.e., whether such an order gives a fresh starting point for limitation).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The judgment-debtor (appellant) contended that limitation should run from 29th March 1922 (the date of the District Judge's order) and not from 21st May 1925.
  • The appellant argued that an order declaring that the appeal has abated is not a "decree or order" as contemplated by Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule I, Limitation Act, and therefore does not provide a fresh starting point for limitation.
  • In support the appellant relied on several decisions of the Judicial Committee and other authorities, chief among them being Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei (A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 65) and Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal (A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 66), which were relied on to show that dismissals for non-prosecution (or similar terminations) did not amount to final decrees for the purpose of limitation.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's (other parties') specific legal arguments in opposition to the appellant's contentions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei, A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 65 Where an appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under an institutional rule that the appeal "shall stand dismissed without further order," no formal order of the appellate body may be made and such dismissal is not a final decree of the appellate Court for the purposes of the relevant Article (Article 179 in that context). Cited by appellant to support the proposition that dismissal for non-prosecution (or an abatement) is not a decree for Article 182 purposes; the Court discusses this authority but contrasts it with later and conflicting authorities.
Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal, A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 66 The order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution did not deal judicially with the matter of the suit and could not be regarded as adopting or confirming the decision appealed from; it merely recognized the appellant's non-compliance with conditions entitling him to appeal. Relied on by appellant; the Court considered this principle but noted other authorities which treat orders putting an end to appeals as final for limitation purposes.
Sachindra Nath Roy v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh, A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 187 Affirmation/quotation of the Judicial Committee's approach on dismissals for non-prosecution in connection with limitation questions. Quoted as a later instance where the Judicial Committee's observations were relied upon; Court places this among authorities to be weighed.
Raghu Prosad Singh v. Jadunandan Prosad Singh, A.I.R. 1921 Patna 6 Explains the Judicial Committee decisions; holds that where an appeal is presented within time any order putting an end to the appeal in any way is either a decree or order within the meaning of Article 182 Clause (2). Used by the Court as an authority supporting the proposition that terminal orders of appellate Courts which finally dispose of appeals fall within Clause (2) of Article 182.
Fazal Husen v. Raj Bahadur, [1897] 20 All. 124 Held that an order by which appeals were declared to have abated did not give a fresh starting point for limitation under Clause 2, Article 179 (i.e., limitation did not run from the abatement order). Cited in the survey of authorities; the Court notes this decision and that some later decisions doubted its authority.
Fazl-ur-Rahman v. Shah Muhammad Khan, [1908] 30 All. 385 Holds that where appeals were dismissed (e.g., counsel informed Court unable to support), limitation nonetheless ran from the decree of the appellate Court; expresses concern that allowing withdrawal/abandonment to start limitation from the earlier decree would open door to fraud. Quoted approvingly for its view that terminal acts by appellants should not allow limitation to run from the original decree and for the anti-fraud rationale.
Kewal v. Tirkha, [1906] 3 A.L.J. 8 One among decisions that cast doubt on the authority of Fazal Husen. Noted by the Court as part of the conflicting jurisprudence; used to show that Fazal Husen's authority was questioned in subsequent cases.
Muhammad Razi v. Karbalai Bibi, [1909] 32 All. 136 Held that an order declaring an appeal to have abated is in effect an affirmation of the decree of the Court below and that limitation begins to run from the date of such order and not from the date of the decree under appeal (i.e., the abatement order gives the fresh starting point). Identified as a contrasting authority to Fazal Husen; the Court observes the existence of this divergent line of authority when weighing the issue.
Tikait Krishna Prosad Singh v. Wazir Narain Singh, [1920] 5 Pat.L.J. 731 Distinguishable facts; the Court in that case followed the Judicial Committee decisions and did not treat the appellate decree as giving the starting point for limitation to certain successors because there was no appellate order declaring abatement. Discussed as a case where Fazal Husen was followed in preference to Muhammad Razi; used to show nuance in application depending on facts (presence or absence of an appellate order declaring abatement).
Hira Lal Kumar v. Ganu Mahto, A.I.R. 1925 Patna 585 Held that appellants allowing their appeal to abate against a deceased respondent could not prevent the deceased's legal representatives from taking benefit of the appellate Court's decree; limitation ran from the date of the Court of appeal's decree. Relied upon by the Court as supportive of the position that final orders of disposal by appellate Courts give a starting point under Article 182 Clause (2).
Kalimuddin v. Esabakuddin In a case involving several respondents and partial dismissals, held that one order (dismissing as against heirs) did not amount to a "decree" under the Code of Civil Procedure while a later order dismissing as against the other respondents did. Noted as illustrating that whether a particular order amounts to a "decree" can depend on the form and effect of the order; used as an example of fine distinctions in authority.
Ramgati Dhar v. Nagendra Lal Chowdhury, Misc. Appeal No. 373 of 1903 (1 C.L.J. 17n) Held that an order of the High Court declaring that an appeal has abated is, if not a decree, certainly an order which has finally disposed of the suit and that an application for execution presented within three years from the date of such order is not barred. Quoted by the Court as an authority that treats abatement orders as final orders within Clause (2), Article 182.
Akshoy Kumar Nundi v. Chunder Mohun Chathati, [1888] 16 Cal. 250 Final orders of disposal of suit (e.g., dismissals on ground of being barred by limitation) are regarded as being within Clause (2), Article 182. Referred to as part of the line of authorities that include final appellate disposals within Clause (2) for limitation purposes.
Rup Singh v. Mukhraj Singh, [1885] 7 All. 887 Holds that dismissal for failure to put in deficient court-fees may fall within the class of orders regarded as final for limitation purposes (though there is some conflict of opinion). Mentioned as an instance where final appellate disposal was treated as giving the starting point for limitation; used to show the breadth of authorities.
Jeeyangar v. Lakshmi Doss, [1906] 30 Mad. 1 (Full Bench) Full Bench view that when an appeal is entertained and an order is made by the Court to which the appeal is preferred that has the effect of finally disposing of the appeal, execution runs from the date of the appellate Court (i.e., such an order falls within Clause 2, Article 182). The Court regarded this Full Bench view as being within the limits of Clause 2, Article 182 and relied upon it in reaching the conclusion affirming the courts below.
Mahomed Mehdi Bella v. Mohini Kanta Saha Chowdhry, [1907] 34 Cal. 874 Referenced in relation to distinctions drawn in later cases; mentioned as having been involved in discussion of the principles in other cases. Referred to in the text as part of the jurisprudential background that earlier cases had relied upon or been distinguished from.
Lokenath Singh v. Gaju Singh, [1915] 22 C.L.J. 333 Explains and paraphrases the basis of Batuk Nath: where an appeal never came up for disposal and was dismissed by the registrar for non-prosecution, the registrar's order was not a decree of the appellate Court. Quoted by the opinion to clarify the import of Batuk Nath and similar Judicial Committee authorities.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court framed the central question as whether limitation under Article 182, Schedule I of the Limitation Act begins to run from 21st May 1925 (the date on which the appeal was declared to have abated and was dismissed) or from 29th March 1922 (the date when the District Judge allowed the first appeal).

The Courts below had held that limitation runs from 21st May 1925. The appellant argued for the earlier date and relied on decisions (notably from the Judicial Committee) holding that dismissals for non-prosecution were not final decrees of the appellate court and therefore did not create a fresh starting point for limitation.

The opinion surveys the authorities and identifies two conflicting lines:

  • One line (including Batuk Nath and Abdul Majid, per the Judicial Committee) holds that dismissals for want of prosecution, particularly where the appeal "stands dismissed without further order," do not amount to a decree or an order that judicially deals with the subject-matter and therefore do not give a fresh starting point for limitation.
  • Another line (including decisions such as Raghu Prosad Singh, Fazl-ur-Rahman, Hira Lal Kumar and Ramgati Dhar) treats orders which finally dispose of appeals — including orders declaring abatement or dismissals that finally put an end to the appeal — as falling within Clause (2) of Article 182, thereby giving a fresh starting point for limitation from the date of such appellate disposal.

The Court examines these conflicting authorities and the practical consequences of adopting the appellant's position. It notes and accepts the reasoning in Fazl-ur-Rahman that allowing appellants effectively to cause time to run from the earlier decree (by withdrawing, declining to support an appeal, or omitting to bring in representatives) could open the door to fraud and would run counter to the language and policy of the Limitation Act.

The Court also refers with approval to the Full Bench decision in Jeeyangar v. Lakshmi Doss that when an appeal is entertained and an order of the appellate Court finally disposes of the appeal, execution runs from the date of the appellate Court — a position which, the Court finds, does not exceed the proper scope of Clause 2, Article 182.

Balancing the authorities and considerations (including the anti-fraud rationale and the character of orders that finally dispose of appeals), the Court concluded that the view taken by the Courts below — that limitation runs from the date of the appellate order disposing of the appeal (21st May 1925) — was correct.

The opinion therefore affirms the approach that terminal appellate orders which finally dispose of proceedings fall within Clause (2), Article 182, and that limitation in the circumstances of this case runs from the date of the abatement/dismissal order rather than from the date of the earlier appellate decree in 1922.

The judgment is delivered by Roy, J., and a short concurrence is recorded ("I agree").

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the Courts below (that the period of limitation under Article 182 Schedule I runs from 21st May 1925) is affirmed. Costs were awarded against the appellant (hearing fee assessed at two gold mohurs).

Implications:

  • Direct effect: Limitation for execution (under Clause 2, Article 182) in the circumstances of this case begins to run from the date on which the appellate Court made an order finally disposing of the appeal (21st May 1925), not from the date of the earlier appellate order in 1922.
  • The Court relied on and reconciled competing authorities, emphasizing that an order of an appellate Court which finally disposes of an appeal may, depending on its character and effect, constitute the relevant "decree or order" for the purpose of Article 182 Clause (2).
  • The opinion does not purport to lay down a new novel precedent beyond applying and preferring authorities that treat final appellate disposals as giving the starting point for limitation; the Court explicitly states that the Courts below had taken a correct view and dismisses the appeal accordingly.
Show full summary ...

    Gohur Bepari Judgment-Debtor, v. Ram Krisna Shaha And Ors. Decree-Holders,

    1. One Radha Madhab Saha instituted a title suit No. 754 of 1920, against Gohur Ali Bepari and others. The suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the 30th August 1920. There was an appeal to the District Judge who allowed it on the 29fch March 1922. Some of the defendants preferred a second appeal to this Court making the plaintiff and the other defendants respondents therein. During the pendency of the appeal Radha Madhab Saha, the plaintiff, died. The appellants in this appeal obtained a rule to show cause why the abatement of this appeal in consequence of the death of the said Radha Madhah Saha should not be set aside and his heirs substituted in his place. The rule was discharged on the 3rd April 1925. The appeal was thereafter put up for hearing and on the 21st May 1925 the following order was passed:

    The sole respondent having died and no substitution having bean made in his place, the appeal abates and is dismissed without costs as the respondent has not appeared.

    2. A decree in similar terms was then drawn up and by it the appeal was disposed of.

    3. The question that arises in the appeal now before us is whether the period of limitation under Article 182 Schedule 1 Limitation Act runs from the 21st May 1925 or from the 29th March 1922. The Courts below have held that it would run from the former date. The judgment-debtor Gohur Ali Bapari has preferred this appeal and his contention is that it would run from the latter date. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that an order declaring that the appeal has abated is not a decree or order as contemplated by Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, and reliance has been placed in support of this argument upon a number of decisions which will be presently noticed and chief amongst which are the decisions of the Judicial Committee in the cases of Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 65 and Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 66.

    4. Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 65 was a case in which the question arose with regard to an appeal before the Judicial Committee which was dismissed for non-prosecution as the steps necessary to be taken under Rule 5 of the order in Council of 15th June 1853 had not been taken by the appellant. That rule provides that in default of the appellant or his agent taking effectual steps for the prosecution of the appeal within such time or times respectively the appeal shall stand dismissed without further order.

    5. Their lordships pointed out that there was no order of His Majesty in Council dismissing the appeal and that no such order was necessary to be made, and under the rule aforesaid the appeal stood dismissed without further order. It was said in that case that a dismissal for want of prosecution is Dot the final decree of an appellate Court within the meaning of Article 179. In Clause 2, Schedule 2 of the Act of 1877, which for our present purposes may be taken as being the same as Article 182, Clause 2, Schedule 1 of the Act of 1908, no question of withdrawal arises in the case. The basis of the decision in Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 65 has been put by Mookerjee and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ., in Lokenath Singh v. Gaju Singh [1915] 22 C.L.J. 333, in these words:

    In that case there was no decree of the Court of appeal because the appeal preferred to the Judicial Committee never Came up for disposal by their lordships. The appeal was dismissed by the registrar for non-prosecution, and it was ruled that the order of the registrar was not a decree of the Court of appeal.

    6. In Abdul Majid v. Jawahir Lal A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 66 an appeal before the Judicial Committee was dismissed for non-prosecution under similar circumstances. Their lordships pointed out that there was no decree of His Majesty in Council in which the decree of the High Court had become merged. It was observed:

    The order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution did not deal judicially with the matter of the suit and could in no sense be regarded as an order adopting or confirming the decision appealed from. It merely recognized authoritatively that the appellant had not complied with the conditions under which the appeal was open to him and that, therefore, he was in the same position as if he had not appealed at all.

    7. These observations were quoted with approval by the Judicial Committee in a later case in which also the question of limitation arose in connexion with an appeal before that Board which had been dismissed for non-prosecution : Sachindra Nath Roy v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 187. These two decisions of the Judicial Committee have also been elaborately explained in Raghu Prosad Singh v. Jadunandan Prosad Singh A.I.R. 1921 Patna 6 which was the case of dismissal of an appeal for non-payment of printing costs. In that case it has been held that where an appeal is presented within time any order putting an end to the appeal in any way is either a decree or order within the meaning of Article 182 Clause (2).

    8. In Fazal Husen v. Raj Bahadur [1897] 20 All. 124 there was an appeal by one Hardyal and an appeal against him, and Hardyal having die during the pendency of the appeals and on the failure to put Hardyal's representatives on the record, the appeals abated. It was held that the order by which the appeals were declared as having abated did not give a fresh starting point for limitation under Clause 2, Article 179, Schedule I of the Act of 1877. In the case of Fazl-ur-Rahman v. Shah Muhammad Khan [1908] 30 All. 385 two appeals were dismissed as the counsel for the appellants informed the Court that he was unable to support them. Fazal Husen v. Raj Bahadur [1897] 20 All. 124 was cited in that case. The learned Judges held that notwithstanding that the appeals had been dismissed under such circumstances limitation did none the less run from the decree of the appellate Court. They went on to observe as follows:

    If a judgment-debtor's appeal, as sometimes happens, is pending for upwards of three years, and if it were held that the appellant judgment-debtor, by withdrawing or declining to support the appeal, or by omitting to bring on the record the representatives of a deceased respondent, could, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal had been filed, cause time to run from the date of the original decree, it would in our opinion be going directly against the language of the Limitation Act and open a door to fraud.

    9. The authority of Fazal Husen v. Raj Bahadur [1897] 20 All. 124 was doubted in other decisions of the same Court, e.g. Kewal v. Tirkha [1906] 3 A.L.J. 8 and Muhammad Razi v. Karbalai Bibi [1909] 32 All. 136. In the last mentioned case it was held that an order declaring an appeal to have abated is in effect an affirmation of the decree of the Court below, and limitation only begins to run against the decree-holder from the date of such order and not from the date of the decree under appeal. In Tikait Krishna Prosad Singh v. Wazir Narain Singh [1920] 5 Pat.L.J. 731, Fazal Husen v. Raj Bahadur [1897] 20 All. 124 was followed in preference to Muhammad Razi v. Karbalai Bibi [1909] 32 All. 136, it being pointed out that the latter case was not one under Article 179, Limitation Act, and also that it proceeded upon an erroneous view of the authority in the case of Mahomed Mehdi Bella v. Mohini Kanta Saha Chowdhry [1907] 34 Cal. 874. In Tikait Krishna Prosad Singh's case (1907) 34 Cal. 874 the facts were that during the pendency of an appeal in the High Court one N who was not a party to the suit or the decree of the trial Court was added respondent in the appeal, he having in the meantime obtained a decree that he was entitled to succeed to the estate of the mortgagor judgment-debtor who had died. The widow of the mortgagor judgment-debtor who was substituted in the place of her husband was the respondent against whom the appeal was originally filed. N died during the pendency of the appeal and an application was made for substituting his heirs but was eventually dropped, The appeal was then disposed of on a compromise between the appellant and the original respondent. W, an heir of N, then applied to execute the decree of the original Court and the question arose whether limitation ran from the decree of the trial Court or from the compromise decree passed by the appellate Court. It appears from the judgment of Coutts, J., that there was no order of the appellate Court declaring that the appeal had abated. In that way, as well as upon the other facts, the case was clearly distinguishable from a normal case of abatement of an appeal. It was held that W could not rely upon the decree of the appellate Court as giving him the starting point for limitation. It will be observed that in this case the learned Judges relied upon the two decisions of the Judicial Committee as supporting their view. In Hira Lal Kumar v. Ganu Mahto A.I.R. 1925 Patna 585 it was held that the fact that the appellants allowed their appeal to abate against the deceased respondent could not prevent the latter's legal representatives from taking the benefit of the appellate Court's decree, and limitation ran under Article 182, Clause (2) from the date of the decree of the Court of appeal. The learned Judges in that case, applying the principle of the decision in Raghu Prosad Singh v. Jadu Nandan Prosad Singh A.I.R. 1921 Patna 6, held that there is no distinction in principle and there ought to be no difference in the result for the purpose of Article 182, Clause 2 when the appellant instead of withdrawing from the appeal allows it to abate. In the case of Kalimuddin v. Esabakuddin it has been pointed out that where one of several respondents died during the pendency of the appeal, and his heirs being brought on the record were not properly represented, the appellants not having put in the deputy registrar's costs and the usual indemnity bond, and the appeal was first of all dismissed as against those heirs by one order and afterwards by another order, dismissed as against the other respondents on the ground that it could not proceed against them alone, the former order did not, while the latter did, amount to a "decree" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held by this Court in Ramgati Dhar v. Nagendra Lal Chowdhury Misc. Appeal No. 373 of 1903, a short note of which is to be found in 1 C.L.J. 17n, that an order of the High Court declaring that an appeal has abated is, if not a decree, certainly an order which has finally disposed of the suit and that therefore an application for execution presented within three years from the date of such order is not barred. That final orders of disposal of similar character are to be regarded as being within Clause (2), Article 182 has been held in cases where the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation Akshoy Kumar Nundi v. Chunder Mohun Chathati [1888] 16 Cal. 250 or on the failure on the part of the appellant to put in deficit Court-fees Rup Singh v. Mukhraj Singh [1885] 7 All. 887 though there is some conflict of opinion as regards the latter class of cases.

    10. The inequities of the view propounded by the appellant have been, as already stated, clearly pointed out in Fazl-ur-Rahman v. Shah Muhaamad Khan [1909] 32 All. 136. In my opinion the view taken by the Full Bench in the case of Jeeyangar v. Lakshmi Doss [1906] 30 Mad. 1, that when an appeal is entertained and an order made by the Court to which the appeal is preferred which has the effect of finally disposing of the appeal, execution runs from the date of the appellate Court, does not go beyond the range of the limits of the applicability of Clause 2, Article 182, Schedule I Limitation Act, of 1908.

    11. The Courts below appear to have taken a correct view of the matter and the appeal accordingly is dismissed with costs : hearing fee-being assessed at two gold mohurs.

    Roy, J.

    12. I agree.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Gohur Bepari Judgment-Debtor, v. Ram Krisna Shaha And Ors. Decree-Holders,
    (Apr 14, 1927)