D SOUNDARARAJA IYENGAR Vs. KSREENIVASA CHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question argued on behalf of appellant is whether an application for a copy required for institution of execution proceedings a starting point from which time will run under Article 182, Schedule I, of the Limitation Act.

(2.) It is, however, unnecessary to deal with it, because respondent has supported the lower Appellate Court s decision on a point on which it held against him, his objection that the appeal to it was presented out of time.

(3.) The objection was considered and dismissed in the lower Appellate Court s order of 3rd January 1916, which we read as a finding that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal earlier within the meaning of Section 5, Clause 2, of the Limitation Act. The facts are that appellant, the debtor, objected to the petition for execution, which was originally presented by 1st respondent, on two grounds, (1) that it was out of time, (2) that 1st respondent, who applied as a Receiver, no longer held that position. The District Munsif took the irregular course, in his preliminary judgment of 14th November 1914 of disallowing (1) and adjourning the hearing of (2) for evidence to a date specified. On that date appellant was absent and the order asked for, one for transmission of the decree to another Court, was passed. Appellant, however, instead of appealing against it, appealed against the order of 14th November 1914 and prosecuted his appeal, until it was dismissed on the ground that that order was not appealable, without correcting his mistake or appealing against the subsequent final order. The question is whether he thus lost time owing to a mistake which the lower Appellate Court could, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, treat as "sufficient cause."