https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196861 A suit seeking allotment and delivery of a share in jointly held Government promissory notes was not treated as a claim for recovery of specific movable property because no identified notes were claimed in specie; the applicable limitation provision was therefore the residuary article, not the article governing specific movable property. The time spent in earlier execution proceedings was excludable under section 14(1) because those proceedings were pursued with due diligence and good faith on the same substantive right, and they failed only because the executing court lacked jurisdiction. On that basis, the suit was within limitation and the limitation defence failed. en-us Thu, 01 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:37:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196861 A suit seeking allotment and delivery of a share in jointly held Government promissory notes was not treated as a claim for recovery of specific movable property because no identified notes were claimed in specie; the applicable limitation provision was therefore the residuary article, not the article governing specific movable property. The time spent in earlier execution proceedings was excludable under section 14(1) because those proceedings were pursued with due diligence and good faith on the same substantive right, and they failed only because the executing court lacked jurisdiction. On that basis, the suit was within limitation and the limitation defence failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196861