PANCHU MANDAL Vs. SHEIKH ISAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the alternative motion for revision are directed against an appellate order refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a decree.

(2.) As regards the appeal, the learned Vakil for the appellant has frankly admitted that he is unable to press it. In this, we think, he is well advised; for there can be no doubt as to there being no right of second appeal in this case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed; but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs.

(3.) As regards the Rule, the facts are these: The sale with which we are concerned took place on the 23rd August 1907, and the petitioner s application to have it set aside was made on the 17th November 1903. The time limited by law had, therefore, passed and prima facie the application was barred by limitation. The petitioner, however, both in the Court of first instance and in the lower Appellate Court claimed the benefit of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, which admittedly governed the case. He was overruled and his application was dismissed by both Courts as being time-barred. He now asks us to interfere in the exercise of our revisional powers on the ground that he was and still is a minor, and that he ought to have been given the benefit of Section 7 although he never claimed it.