https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199411 A representative suit by a sebait on behalf of an idol was held subject to the bar under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C. because an earlier suit for the same accounts had been expressly and unconditionally withdrawn without leave to sue again, so the renewed claim for accounts for 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred. The claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was also held time-barred under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, as the monies were treated as money received for the idol's benefit and the plaintiff failed to prove an express trust. Section 10 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the sebait was not a trustee in the technical sense required. en-us Wed, 06 Jun 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:02:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199411 A representative suit by a sebait on behalf of an idol was held subject to the bar under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Civil P.C. because an earlier suit for the same accounts had been expressly and unconditionally withdrawn without leave to sue again, so the renewed claim for accounts for 15 November 1906 to 14 May 1921 was barred. The claim for accounts prior to 6 February 1921 was also held time-barred under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, as the monies were treated as money received for the idol's benefit and the plaintiff failed to prove an express trust. Section 10 of the Limitation Act did not apply because the sebait was not a trustee in the technical sense required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Jun 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199411