Judgement

Appeal (No. 79 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (January 28, 1924) reversing an order of the Subordinate Judge of Hoogly (August 22, 1921).

The main question on the appeal was whether an application by the present appellant, dated January 4, 1921, for execution of a decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction dated August 27, 1902, was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I., art. 183.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge held that the application was not barred.

The High Court reversed his order. The learned judges (Richardson and Page JJ.), applying Chutterput Singh v. Sait Sumari Mull (I), held that the decree had not been revived so as to extend the period of limitation under art. 183.

1927. Jan. 27. Sir George Lowndes K.C., and Dube for the appellant.

De Gruyther K.C., and E. B. Raikes for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The appellants sought to distinguish Chutterput Singh v. Sait Sumari Mull (I. L. R. 43 C. 903.) on the grounds stated in the present judgment; reference was made also to Srihary Mundul v. Murari Chawdhry (( 1886) I. L. R. 13 C. 257.) and Krishna Kumar v. Pasupati Banerjee. (( 1921)