Law: Civil Procedure Code (1908)

Section: O. XXI, rr. 58, 63

  (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, rr. 58 & 63 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 11-Petitionraising objection under r. 58 dismissed for default-Claimant, in order to avoid effect of order of dismissal, should file suit within one year under Art. 11, Limitation Act. Cannanore Bank v. Madhavi A I R 1942 Mad. 41; Ambica Prosad v. Firm Soorajumull A I R 1939 Cal. 620; Kishen Parshad v. Punjab National Bank Ltd., Amritsar A I R 1927 Lah. 872 and Laxman Ganesh v. Ballram Lahanu A I R 1948 Bom. 187 ref. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Procedural law-Does not extinguish a right, except by adverse possession under S. 28, but only bars remedy-Law, in such case, not to be strictly interpreted against a person adversely affected-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 28. The law of limitation is a procedural law and except for section 28 where under a person, by adverse possession, acquires a title in an immovable property, it does not extinguish a right, but only bars the remedy. Therefore, in a case where the remedy is barred but the right exists, the law should not be strictly interpreted against a person whose right is to be adversely affected. Puddomonee Dossee and another v. Roy Muthooranath Chow dhury and others (1873) 20 Suth. W R 133; Mst. Goonjessur Koonwar v. Lachmee Narain Singh and others (1873) 20 Suth. W R 418; Chet Singh v. Gujar Singh A I R 1931 Lah. 74; Unnamalai Ammal v. Amba Baghyathammal and others A I R 1940 Mad. 763 and Mst. Hidayat-ul-Nissa v. Jalal-ud-Din A I R 1941 Oudh 95 ref. (c) Interpretation of statutes-.Remedy barred but right exist ing-Law not to be strictly interpreted against person whose right adversely affected. Date of hearing: 6th June 1969.   JUDGMENT SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.-This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated the 1st July 1966 of the learned Single Judge whereby he by accepting the appeal of the respondent against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge restored the order dated the 20th July 1964 of the learned trial Judge, dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground that it was barred under rule 63 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.…