SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 223

VARGHESE KALLIATH
KAMALAMMA – Appellant
Versus
TRIVANDRUM PERMANENT BANK – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This revision petition concerns a question of limitation. The respondent herein filed a suit O. S. No. 20 of 1960 for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 5-7-1966. This decree was enforceable only against the defendants 1 to 12,14 and 16 and their assets. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the said decree. He filed an appeal against that decree and in that appeal the plaintiff claimed a decree against all the defendants in the suit namely defendants 1 to 34 and also against the assets of all the defendants. In appeal the trial court decree was confirmed. It was on 24-10-1972.

2. The Counsel for the plaintiff tells me that execution of the decree was sought in the year 1976. But later the execution petition was not prosecuted. Now the plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 29 of 1980. This is dated 19-4-1980.

3. The 4th defendant - revision petitioner contended that the execution petition is barred by limitation. The execution court rejected the contention and ordered execution. Hence he files this revision.

4. The format of the contention is that the period of 12 years in Art.136 of the Limitation Act for the execution of the decree has to be computed not fro

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top