Vythilinga Muppanar Vs Seethalakshmi Ammal

Madras High Court 21 Jan 1890 (1890) 01 MAD CK 0002

Judgement Snapshot

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. We do not agree with the District Judge Articles 165 and 167 of the Limitation Act cannot apply to cation made by the judgment-debtor and

must be limited to cases contemplated in Sections 331, 335 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. No specific section of the code is mentioned either in Art 165 or in Art 167 and both articles contemplate application by person dispossessed in

the execution of a decree by the decree holder to recover back possession. Unless they referred-severally to debtors as well as third parties, there

would be 178 has no application, unless upon the proper construction of Article 165 and 167 it can be held they cannot apply.'' We reverse the

orders of the Courts below and direct that the application be dismissed with costs as barred by limitation.

From The Blog
Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Read More