The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for execution must be made within the limitation period specified in the Indian Limitation Act, and the final order disposing of the application determines the starting point for the limitation period.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 19 of 1944) from an order of the High Court (August 19, 1942) affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai (July 10, 1940).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. This appeal raised the question whether an application for execution, No. 72 of 1940, preferred on November 25, 1939, for execution of a decree dated November 3, 1934, was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, and that depended on the construction of art.182 of the Act. That article was in the following terms—

Description of Period

Time from which period Application.

of Limitation.

begins to run.

182. For the execution of a decree

Three years

1. 1. The date of the decree or order, or or order of any Civil Court not provided for by art. 183 or by s. 48 of

2. 2. (where there has been an appeal) the date of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

the final decree or order of the Appellate Court, or the withdrawal of the appeal, or

3. (where there has been a review of judgment) the date of the decision passed on the review, or

4.....

5. (where the application next hereinafter mentioned has been made) the date of the final order passed on an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step in aid of execution of the decree or order, or ....

On November 3, 1934, a decree was passed on a promissory note in Original Suit No. 118 of 1934 by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, decreeing in favour of the present appellant payment of a sum of Rs.13,716.12.0., with interest and costs, by the defendants, who were two widows. It was ordered that the decree should be against the property of the joint family of which the husbands of the two widows had been members, and against the assets of a maker of the promissory note in the hands of the defendants. So the decree was not executable against the private property of the widows. For the purposes of this appeal it might be taken that the respondents represented the judgment-debtors under that decree, the appellant being the judgment-creditor.

On December 14, 1934, the judgment-creditor presented a petition, which was numbered E.P. No. 418 of 1934, under r. 11 of Or. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking that the decree should be executed by the attachment of two sums of money in the hands of garnishees, alleged to be owing to the first defendant. On January 21, 1935, the learned judge made an order on that petition " rule

V. E. A. Annamalai C hettiar V. Valliammai Achi 136

absolute,” which presumably meant that there was an order absolute for attachment of the moneys in the hands of the garnishees. On February 11, 1935, the judgment-creditor made an application, No. 123 of 1935 in E.P. No. 418 of 1934, asking that he might be appointed receiver to realize the amounts in the hands of the garnishees.

On February 19, 1935, an application, No. 175 of 1935, was made in E.P. No. 418 of 1934 by the second defendant in the suit, asking that the order of attachment of the amounts in the hands of the garnishees might be set aside, her contentions being, in short, that she had not been served with the application for attachment, and that the moneys attached were her personal property and therefore not subject to the decree. On July 10, 1935, the learned Subordinate Judge on that application directed that there was no need to set aside the order of attachment, but that the petitioner should prefer a claim petition which might be inquired into under s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the matter was adjourned to July 25. On the same date, namely, July 10, 1935, the learned judge dismissed the judgment-creditors application, No. 123 of 1935, for his appointment as receiver, directing tha he could make an application after the second defendants claim was disposed of.

On July 25, 1935, the second defendant made an application, No. 527 of 1935, in E.P. 418 of 1934, under s. 47 of the Code praying that the attachment of the moneys in