MUSAMMAT HANIFUNNISSA Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, dated the 9 March 1920, holding that an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code is time-barred. The litigation out of which the question arises has been a remarkably protracted one. The suit was brought in 1901, and the parties have been to this Court at least five times. The point, however, whish we have to decide is a simple one.

(2.) The facts and so mush of the history of the case as is relevant are fully stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice Piggott, dated the 17 February 1919 (Execution First Appeal No. 139 of 1918), when a Bench of this High Court, consisting of that learned Judge and one of us, allowed an appeal brought by some strangers to the original suit against an order of restitution which the Subordinate Judge had made on the same application whish it now before us for the second time.

(3.) The appellants before us, Musammat Hanifunnissa and Musammat Bashirunnissa, were the original judgment debtors in the suit. The decree obtained against them, of whish Bansidhar, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, had become the transferee, was set aside and the suit finally dismissed by this High Court, as the result of a prior order made by their Lordships of the Privy Council, by an order, dated the 8 May 1912.