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

1919 Supreme(All) 162

P. C. BANERJI, PIGGOTT
Seth Shyam Karan – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Benares – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This and the connected appeal arise out of execution proceedings in connection with a simple decree for money passed on the 18th of December 1897. Various applications for execution were made between that year and the year 1906. In 1905 the' property of the judgement-debtor in the District of Hamirpur was taken charge of by the Colleotor, apparently under the provisions of Section 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. [The management of the Collector continued down to 1917, when he released the property. Oh the 4th of April 1917 the Court of Wards, now in charge of the estate of the decree-holder, applied for attachment and sale of the property situated in the Hamirpur district. This application was resisted by the judgment debtors on the ground of limitation. They contended that the application was barred by the three years' rule of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and also u/s 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was allowed by the Court of first instance, which held that having regard to the fact that more than twelve years had elapsed since the date of the decree, Section 48 of the CPC was applicable and the present application for executio

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