In a civil revision application, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the motion to the trial court by consent, directing consideration of Order 23, Rule 2 of CPC and Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
Impugned order set aside by consent; motion restored to trial court; respondent to file reply within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA713_15.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.713 OF 2015
Bushra Khatun Usmanali Siddiqui … Applicant Vs. Yusufali Usmanali Siddiqui … Respondent
Mr. Shishir Joshi i/b. Ms Bhakti C. Jogal for Applicant. Mr. Omkar Khaiyam Shaikh for Respondent.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2015
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for applicant and Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel for respondent at length. Rule. Mr. Shaikh waives service for respondent. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Application is taken up for final hearing.
1/2
CRA713_15.sxw
“2. Limitation law not affected by first suit.- In any fresh suit instituted on permission granted under the last preceding rule, the plaintiff shall be bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted.”
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Order 23, Rule 2 of CPC binds a plaintiff filing a fresh suit to the law of limitation as if the first suit had not been instituted.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bushra Khatun Usmanali Siddiqui
Yusufali Usmanali Siddiqui
R. G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
