Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Fazal Imam And Ors. vs Metta Singh on 20 March, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1884) ILR 10 Cal 549
Author: Mitter
Bench: Mitter, Maclean


JUDGMENT

Mitter, J.

1. The lower Courts in this case have held that the decree-holders right to execute the decree is barred by limitation. It is contended before us that this decision is wrong, because the present application, which is dated 1st March 1883, is within three years from the date of another application, dated 5th August 1880 made by the judgment-creditor in order to draw out the sale proceeds realised by the sale of certain properties of the judgment-debtor in a previous execution. In support of this contention our attention has been called to the decision in Venkatarayalu v. Narasimha I.L.R. 2 Mad. 174. The lower Courts have decided this case on the strength of a ruling of this Court in the case of Hem Chunder Chowdhry v. Brojo Soondury Debee I.L.R. 8 Cal. 89. We have examined both these rulings, and we find that the one of our Court is exactly in point. No doubt in the Madras case it was given as an additional reason over and above the one on which the decision mainly rested, that such an application as this was an application which came within the purview of the words “an application to take some step in aid of execution.” We are of opinion that no reason has been placed before us that would warrant us in not following the ruling of our Court.

2. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

75 queries in 0.386 seconds.