Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Bhikari Das vs Mulchand on 6 March, 1885
Equivalent citations: (1885) ILR 7 All 624
Author: Straight
Bench: Straight, Brodhurst

JUDGMENT

Straight, J.

1. I think the Courts below have rightly held that the suit is not barred by the provisions of Section 43 of Act XIV of 1882. It appears that the plaintiff formerly sued the defendant for his share of the profits of 1286 fasli. At the time of the institution of that suit the profits now claimed were due. This suit was struck off on account of the non-appearance of the parties, under Section 140 of Act XII of 1881, and leave was specially reserved for the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit. I do not see anything in the law to prevent the plaintiff from bringing the present suit. At any rate, before the case was struck off he could have so amended his plaint as to have included the present claim. If he could do so, a fortiori I do not see any reason why he should not do the same in afresh suit. As it is, the claim for 1286 fasli is barred by limitation, and the plaintiff can now proceed with his claim in respect of 1287 and 1288 fasli.

2. I also concur with the Judge in that portion of his judgment in which he disposes of the plea about sir expenses. As to the third plea, the judgment of the Judge fully disposes of all the pleas. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Brodhurst, J.

3. I concur.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

77 queries in 0.345 seconds.