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 · 147 wordsAli Imam, J.—It has been pointed out to us that the Munsif, in holding as he did that the petition for restoration was not barred by limitation, had in fact fallen into an error, and that the facts would disclose that the petition was so barred; but we do not regard this contention as of any substance inasmuch as even if it be conceded that the Munsif had fallen into an error, be it of law or of fact, this is not an error in the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code. This petition is rejected with costs.
Roe, J.
I agree. There is no substance in the suggestion that the Munsif had no jurisdiction because the case was barred by limitation. The question whether or not it was barred by limitation was a question specifically within the province of the Court to decide.