https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289523 The court interpreted the period for depositing costs in a restoration petition, allowing the exclusion of the day of the order and extending the deadline based on equitable principles. The court clarified the interpretation of "month" in the court order and highlighted the importance of uniformity in computing time periods. Due to a mistaken assumption in the lower court's order, the petitioner was granted relief, with the erroneous orders set aside. The judgment allowed the revision, emphasizing fairness to parties and directing the petitioner to pay costs by a specified date for the suit's restoration. en-us Fri, 07 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2020 14:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289523 The court interpreted the period for depositing costs in a restoration petition, allowing the exclusion of the day of the order and extending the deadline based on equitable principles. The court clarified the interpretation of "month" in the court order and highlighted the importance of uniformity in computing time periods. Due to a mistaken assumption in the lower court's order, the petitioner was granted relief, with the erroneous orders set aside. The judgment allowed the revision, emphasizing fairness to parties and directing the petitioner to pay costs by a specified date for the suit's restoration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289523