JUDGMENT
1. We agree with the Lower Courts in thinking this to be a case governed by the ruling in Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Papammah I.L.R. 19 Mad. 54 the only difference (if any) being that the judgment-debtor in this case appears never to have contested any of the applications for execution. In our opinion, as the judgment-debtor had notice of those applications he is bound by the orders passed thereon, as the Subordinate Judge who passed those orders must be held, whether rightly or wrongly, to have determined that the decree was executable Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri Chowdhry L.R. 8 I.A. 123 at p. 131 : I.L.R. 8. Calc. 51.
2. As observed by their Lordships in a similar case, Ram Kirpa Shukul v. Mussumat Rup Kuari L.R. 11 I.A. 37 at p. 42 : I.L.R. 6 All. 269, it would be a reproach upon the administration of justice if the plaintiff were now to be told that her decree that has been executed for the last 20 years was not executable.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Leave a Reply