T.C.SHRIVASTAVA
SHASHIKANTABAI RATANLAL PORWAL – Appellant
Versus
RAJKISHAN – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the decree-holder whose application for execution of a decree against the non-applicants has been held barred by time.
( 2 ) ON 27-10-1951 the decree in question was passed in favour of the applicant against the non-applicants for Rs. 500/- payable in five instalments of Rs. 100/each. The first instalment fell due on 1-2-1952 and the subsequent instalments fell due every three months thereafter. It was ordered in the decree that after any instalment had been defaulted and a month had passed after the default, the whole amount would become payable. ,d eq'r erkyck okftcqy cnk gks The judgment-debtors paid nothing and the decree-holder filed the present execution on 14-5-1955. She has claimed recovery of the last four instalments with interest stating that the first instalment which fell due on 1-2-1952 had become time-barred.
( 3 ) ON behalf of the judgment-debtors it was stated that as the first instalment was defaulted, the whole amount became due on 1-3-1952 and as the -decree-holder did not file the execution petition with-in three years from that date, the present petition was barred by time. This contentio
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.