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

1922 Supreme(Mad) 104

SPENCER
Minor Subbarayan By Guardian – Appellant
Versus
Minor Natarajan By Their Guardian – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Spencer, J.

1. In disposing of an execution petition the Sub-Court of Mayavaram in an order passed on April 9th, 1919, which the District Judge of Tanjore confirmed on appeal, extended the period of 12 years after which Section 48, C.P.C. declares that no order for the execution of decree shall be made upon any fresh application. This 12 years period has been extended by the executing Court by the addition of a period equal to that during which a stay of execution of the decree was once obtained by an order of Court in 1913.

2. I am of opinion that this is not permissible by law, and that Section 48, C.P.C. which contains an unqualified prohibition against execution of the decrees more than 12 years old, is not controlled by Section 15 of the Limitation Act, Section 15 of that Act speaks of the computation of periods of limitation with reference to the periods prescribed in schedule to the Act. Though the words "in the schedule" do not occur in this section or in Section 19 as they do in Sections 3 and 6, the word "prescribed" can in applying the Act and to suits under the general law refer to nothing else. This is the meaning given by this Court to the section in Narasimha D










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