Limitation law on ex parte decree applications: a barred remedy under the 1877 Act was not revived by the 1908 Act.

An application to set aside an ex parte decree was treated as governed by Article 164 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1877, because the right to apply had already accrued and become time-barred before the Limitation Act, 1908 commenced. The later Act did not revive a remedy that had already ceased to exist, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was stated to preserve the effect of repeal and prevent revival of a barred right. On that analysis, the application remained barred by limitation under the 1877 Act, and the 1908 Act did not reopen it.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree was governed by Article 164 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1877 or by Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether a right already barred under the repealed Act was revived by the later Act.

Analysis: The right to apply had accrued and become barred under Article 164 of the Second Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1877 long before the Limitation Act, 1908 came into force. The later limitation provision could not apply so as to reopen a remedy that had already ceased to exist. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved the effect of repeal and prevented revival of a right that was no longer in force when the old Act was repealed.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1877, and the Limitation Act, 1908 did not revive it. The order setting aside the ex parte decree was reversed.

---