AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 151 wordsField, J.—We think the Judge in the Court below is wrong in this case. We have heard the order, dated 25th January 1879, and we think it cannot he treated as an order u/s 281 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order contemplated by that section is an order made after the investigation mentioned in Section 278. Section 280 commences "if upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied, &c." Section 281 begins, "if the Court is satisfied, &c." "Satisfied" clearly means satisfied upon the investigation. There was no investigation in this case, the Munsif having declined to make any investigation, remarking that the parties would not be prejudiced.
We think, therefore, that the one-year''s rule of limitation does not apply to �he present case. We set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand the case for trial on the merits.
Costs will follow the result.