Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.-An important question of law arises in this C.M.S.A. namely, whether the 12 years’ period prescribed in section 48, Civil Procedure Code is absolute and unqualified, and subject only to the exception in section 48 (2)(a), and imposes a complete bar to the entertainment of a fresh application for execution after the expiry of the period of 12 years, irrespective of the provisions of section 15 of the Limitation Act, being not a. period of limitation prescribed for any proceedings.

The facts here are briefly these.-The petitioner (decree-holder) obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs.3,000 and odd, in respect of two promissory notes, on 10th April, 1930, in O.S.No.292 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, filed by him on 1st April, 1930. He had got an attachment before judgment on 9th April, 1930, in I.A.No.313 of 1930. The judgment-debtor effected a partition with his father on 30th March, 1930. Then he filed I.P.No.20 of 1930 in the Sub-Court, Vellore, on 4th April, 1930, and was adjudicated insolvent on 11th September, 1930. His moveables were attached by this decree-holder on nth April, 1930. The judgment-debtor’s father filed a petition and got many of the items attached before judgment released, claiming them to have fallen to him at partition, on 8th August, 1931. Then he bequeathed them to the judgment-debtor’s sons by, a will, dated 9th August, 1931 and died on 16th August, 1931. The decree-holder filed a claim suit, O.S.No.33 of 1933, Sub-Court, Vellore and got the claim order dated 8th August, 1931, set aside. The Official Receiver filed I.A.No.350 of 1933 in I.P.No.20 of 1930 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore, to set aside the alleged partition dated 30th March, 1930, as a bogus one and in fraud of the creditors and got that partition set aside as fraudulent. The judgment-debtor filed C.M.A. No.30 of 1934 and A.S.No.86 of 1934 in the District Court, North Arcot, regarding the setting aside of the claim order and partition. Both Were dismissed by the District Judge. The judgment-debtor filed C.R.P.No.58 of 1934 and S.A.No.222 of 1935 in this Court against the orders of the District Judge. They were dismissed on 5th February, 1937. The judgment-debtor’s sons asked the Official Receiver for partition and then filed a suit (O.S.No.27 of 1941) from which there was an appeal which was decided only on 21st March, 1944. The Insolvency Court ordered stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No.292 of 1930 on 18th August, 1931, under section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and that stay continued till 10th February, 1942, when the decree-holder filed I.A.No.103 of 1942, in I.P. No.20 of 1930 in the Insolvency Court, (Sub-Court, Vellore) and got the permission to execute the decree and put the proceeds into Court. Then he filed E.P.Nos.745 and 746 of 1942 which were dismissed in limine as barred by limitation under section 48, Civil Procedure Code. Later on, he filed the present Execution Petition (E.P. No.376 of 1944) and claimed that it was in time as he Was entitled, under section 15 of the Limitation Act, to deduct the period between 18th August, 1931 and 10th February, 1942, covered by the stay ordered by the Insolvency Court for which he was not responsible. Both the lower Courts held that he was not entitled to the exclusion of that period under section 15 of the Limitation Act, as section 48 Civil Procedure Code, did not prescribe a period of limitation, and was therefore not controlled by section 15 of the Limitation Act, and imposed absolute bar (subject to section 48(2)(a) and not a mere period of limitation. There are some other minor points of law also involved besides the justice and validity of the rejection of I.A.No.157 of 1949 filed to prove fraud under section 48(2)(a) by the judgment-debtor by the learned District Judge.

I have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. I find it necessary, before discussing and deciding the minor legal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document