IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. D. AGRAWAL
BUDH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
8th ADDL.DIST.JUDGE, MEERUT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 4386 Of 1985
Decided On : 04/05/1985
Limitation Act - Legal Representatives - Application of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act to the application by legal representatives for execution of a decree
Fact of the Case:
The sole decree-holder died and the legal representatives sought permission to proceed with the execution filed in 1969. The petitioners argued that Art. 137 of the Limitation Act should apply, limiting the application to three years from the death of the decree-holder.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in proceedings for execution of a decree, the legal representatives are not required to seek substitution upon the death of the decree-holder. Therefore, the bar of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply, and the application by the legal representatives was dismissed.
Issues: Interpretation of O. 22, R. 12, C. P. C. and Art. 137 of the Limitation Act in relation to applications by legal representatives for execution of a decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted O. 22, R. 12, C. P. C. to conclude that no application for substitution or otherwise is required to be made by legal representatives in execution proceedings, and therefore, the bar of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable.
Final Decision: The petition by the legal representatives for execution of the decree was dismissed.
( 1 ) HEARD counsel.
( 2 ) THE sole decree-holder died on Feb. 22, 1979. The legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder made an application on Sept. 8, 1983, for being permitted to proceed with the execution which had been filed and registered in the year 1969. For the petitioners it is contended that in the absence of provision for limitation in respect of such application contained in O. 22, Civil Procedure Code, Art. 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, should be taken as applicable and hence the application by the legal representatives could be made only within three years and not beyond the same. I am unable to agree.
( 3 ) UPON reference to O. 22, R. 12, C. P. C. it will appear that according to that provision nothing in Rr. 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. This means, in other words, that in relation to execution, the legal representatives are not called upon to seek substitution upon the death of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor, as the case may be. Were, as in this case, the decree-holder dies it is open to the legal representatives claiming interest in the estate of the deceased or as being entitled to proceed with the decree, to come up just by way of information to the execution Court and thereafter proceed with the execution. Since under the Code no application for substitution or otherwise is required to be made by such legal representatives, it cannot be claimed that the bar of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act is attracted. Art. 137 may be invoked where an application is required under the law to be necessarily made in order to confer or create a right to proceed in a matter, but where no such application is the requirement of law, the bar of limitation is inapplicable.
( 4 ) FOR these reasons the petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.