B.UPADHYA
B. TULSI PAT RAM – Appellant
Versus
NAYAB SINGH – Respondent
( 1 ) THESE are decree-holders appeals arising out of execution proceedings.
( 2 ) OF tile two decrees which are sought to be executed one was obtained on 29-5-1941 and the other on 26-9-1947. The defendants applied for setting aside these decrees. The applications were dismissed for default. Therefore, some fresh applications were made and the restoration proceedings remained pending till the 20th January 1951, when the restoration applications were finally rejected.
( 3 ) THE decree-holders then applied for execution. One of these applications was made on 1-7-1951 and in respect of the other decree the application for execution was presented on 2-7-1951. The decree-holders prayed for attachments in both these cases. The judgment-debtors filed objections and the main objection, which has now come up for consideration is that the execution applications were barred by time. The executing court upheld the objection and dismissed the applications as barred by time and the decision was upheld in appeal by the lower appellate court. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that inasmuch as the judgment-debtors filed applications for setting aside the ex parte decree the
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.