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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 494

BURN
K. Nagalinga Chetty – Appellant
Versus
O. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court in E. P. No. 759 of 1938 in M. S. C. No. 7395 of 1925. The question is whether the execution is barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree in the small cause suit was passed on the 2nd February, 1926. The execution petition was filed on 27th October, 1938. It was a fresh application for execution. Prima facie Section 48 prevents the Court from passing any orders for execution on such application. The decree-holders plea was that he was entitled to execute because subsequent to the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes he had filed a new trial application in 1926 and that when that failed he had filed a revision petition in the High Court (C.R.P. No. 127 of 1927). That revision petition was dismissed with costs on 7th March, 1928 and the decree-holder contended that the period of twelve years indicated in Section 48 should be calculated from 7th March, 1928. In that case the application would of course be well within twelve years. The learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court had decided in favour of the decree-holder. Considering what he calls an








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