TMI Blog1935 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these. A preliminary mortgage decree was obtained on May 7, 1917, which was amended in some respects, not material to be particularised, on May 22, 1917. 3. There were a number of mortgagors interested in different. villages comprised in the mortgage, and some of them appealed to the High Court against the preliminary decree. There were in fact two such appeals. One appeal succeeded, with the result that certain villages were excluded from the decree, and the suit of the mortgagee was dismissed as against those appellants., So far as they were concerned, that was the end of the matter. 4. There was a second appeal, by which certain of the mortgagors sought to exclude other villages from the decree, and that appeal failed. 5. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t application came on it was objected to upon the ground that it was out of time and barred by Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, three years since June 7, 1920, having expired. 10. The decree-holder, however, sought to escape from that defence by alleging that he was entitled to the exclusion of three periods in computing the prescribed period. The first period was from December 23, 1920, to November '8, 1921, while he was seeking execution under the preliminary decree which, he contended, ought to be excluded in computing the prescribed period under the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. The second period was from May 20, 1923, to June 19, 1923, being the period of the long vacation, which he claimed shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Judge to deal with it; and, lastly, that the Court had a general judicial jurisdiction, outside the Indian Limitation Act, to relieve a suitor from the provisions of the Act in a: case where hardship is established. 13. It will be convenient to call attention to the provisions of the relevant sections of the Indian Limitation Act. They are Sections 3, 4 and 14 (2). By Section 3 it. is. provided : Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 25 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the first schedule shall be dismissed, although limitation has; not been set up as a defence. 14. Section 4 provides : Where the period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to that matter, the appellants seem to their Lordships to be in a position which is in the nature of a dilemma. It is to be noted that there is a marked distinction in form between Section 4 and Section 14. The language employed in Section 4 indicates that it has nothing to do with computing the prescribed period. What the section provides is that, where the period prescribed expires on a day when the Court is closed, notwithstanding that fact, the application may be made on the day that the Court reopens; so that there is nothing in the section which alters the length of the prescribed period : whereas in Section 14, and other sections of a similar nature in the Act, the direction begins with the words : In computing the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case like the present. What it provides is that, where the period of limitation prescribed expires on a day when the Court is closed, the application may be made on the day when the Court reopens. In their Lordships' view that means the proper Court in which the application ought to have been made, and on that view of it, it is impossible to say that this application was made to the proper Court on the day on which that Court reopened. Therefore, on either view of the case, the appellants necessarily fail in regard to that period. 21. That would be enough to dispose of the appeal but for the fact that two further points have been put before their Lordships : First, that the application was in fact made to the proper Court on June 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips only desire to add one other word, and it is this, that the decision which has been referred to in the case of Basvanappa v. Krishnadas (1920) I.L.R. 45 Bom. 443 : S.C. 22 Bom. L.R. 1387 cannot, in their view, be supported, having regard to the provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. 24. As counsel for the appellants referred to Section 5 of the Act and suggested that there was some discretion under that section which could be exercised by the Court in this case, it is right to say that in their Lordships' view that section has no application at all to the circumstances of this case. 25. In the result, therefore, their Lordships are of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, and they will humbly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
