Weerappa Pulle vs Meera Lebbe – clr volume 1 page 055

In Abdul Cader v. 1st and 2nd Defendants, the court examined whether the substitution of a new plaintiff and the re-issue of a writ qualified as “process of law” sufficient to prevent a judgment from being presumed satisfied after ten years, under section 5 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871. The decision held that revival or enforcement steps directed at a judgment against any one of multiple liable parties serve to keep the judgment alive against all such parties, reaffirming the principle that a joint and several judgment maintains its effect unless changed expressly by proper legal process. The determinations referenced the preservation of accrued rights under repealed statutes and the efficacy of process actions, underscoring that enforcement measures—such as the re-issuance of writs—sustain