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
5 paragraphs · 366 wordsCoutts, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit brought by five persons for possession of certain land. They obtained a decree for joint possession in favour of all. The defendants have appealed to this Court but only four plaintiffs have been made respondents and a preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal cannot be heard because the decree was one for joint possession so that even if the appeal were successful it would be infructuous because the plaintiff who was not made a respondent would still be able to execute the decree. In my opinion this contention must succeed and if authority be needed in support of this, I would refer to the case of Baser Seikh v. Fazle Karim (1914) 19 C. W. N. 290=28 I. C. 703 which followed the previous decisions on the point.
It has been urged, however, by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the case before us one of the other respondents has died and the plaintiff who was omitted from the category of respondents has been substituted in his place, and consequently the objection which has been urged has no force. I am unable to accept this contention. In the first place, although this plaintiff is now on the record, he is only on the record as representing the respondent who has died, he is not on the record in his own capacity, and, secondly, be has been brought on the record long after the period of limitation for filing this appeal had expired.
Next we have been asked to extend the period of limitation u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, but in the first place no application for extension of the period of limitation has been filed although the learned Counsel for the appellants was warned some considerable time ago that if he wishes to ask for an extension of the period of limitation an application should be filed, and, in the second place there are no grounds for extending the period in this particular case.
In these circumstances it is unnecessary to go into the merits of this case and I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
Das, J.-I agree