LexANANDILAL & ANR versus RAM NARAIN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
806
,
A
ANANDILAL & ANR.
v.
RAM NARAIN & ORS.
B
May 10, · 191J4
[A.P. SEN AND V. BALKRISHNA ERADI, JJ,j
Limitation Act 1908 s: 15 U) and Code of Civil Procedure 1908 s. 48.
ExecUtion of decree-Partial .s"ay of-Decree_ holder whether etitftled to cliwm
C
eX~lusion of j)erioi in computation -of limitation.
D
E
F
G
H
•
•
J
Words and Phrases : l•E~ecution'~-Meani'ng o/-_S. 15 . ( J) Limilatlon
-1
Aci1908.
The predecess_or·l.i:i-title of respon;Jeot No·. 1 obtained a decree agaitist.
the p_r-edeCessor·in-:title 9f respondent Nos. 2- and 3.
The decrtie was
affirmed by the State High Court on April S, 1938. During the pendenoy of
the app-~al, the Higb-Cocirt &tayed execution· of the decree u·ader Order XLI,
r. 5 of the Code Clf Civil Procedure ·on .condition that the api)ellents-
defendants furn\sb.ed security for the"dlte satisfaction of the dCcree.· Against
the decree Passed- .by the High Cciu.it tht defendants preferred all appeal
bef~r~ the' Judicial CotQmftteA of the
State-~ -In.the_ appeai, the Judicial
Committe~ passed an interi.m order
d1t~d August J.6, 194_0 directing that
until .further orders "the prop.:.rties attached ill ex:ecution- shall -continue
to remain
und~r att·a~hrrient but further proceedings for
the.saJe thereof
Shall i-en1ain stayed
o·n --Novomber 24, .-1944. the Judicial
Committee
distUissed th~ _s~id -appeJl-anJ the ini'erim stay.stood diSsolved.
Respo~dent Nu. 1 ·-·who h.td purGhased
th~ decree fcom the beirS of
ihe original d~cree·holder resumcd-thC eXccution of th:i decree.
The exeCu·
· tion applicati9n filed by him .wJs dismissed for default on June 11, 192f.5,
restored 6n DeCemhcr I."4,- "1946 but again disdlisscd for default on Jai:iuary
·2_1, 1954.
Thei'_eafter,. a fresh application for
execution, was ·filed on
FcbruarY. '1 s i 19 54.
This application was oPposed by 1hc surety .appeij_an ls
on th~ ·grcund that it was barred by limitation having be-en filed· beyond tho
period of 12 years presCfib~d .hY s, 48 of the Co'de of Civil Procedure ..
The DiStricf ·Judge rcjeci·ed the· objection by the appellants holding
th.at alth.ouith the stay of execution wa:; par.tial .as only s.ale of. the attached
properties ·had been ___ stayed .by- tne Judicla_l Committee, the decree-holder
was entilled to the benefit of s. lS (1) of the Limitation Act.
I
-'f
•
)
•
ANANDILAL v .. RAM NARAIN
'
807
The appellants preferred an appeal before the. High Court which was
, A
allowed by a Single JUdge, who held that an order of partial stay like .
the one granted by the Judicial Committee only postponed the sale of the
attached properties .~d did not have the .effect of making the decree
inexecutable ond therefore s. 15 \!)of .the Limitation Act was not attract~d.
Respondent No. 1 preferred a Letters Patent Arpeal and a Full Bc~ch
of the High Court held tha.t the word . "execU:tioii'-' ins: tS (1) must .be
con~trued in a broad sense, tha:t fr did not ex~lude a part'ial stay of exeCll· ·
tion ·aod · therefore the deciec·holder was entitled to tho exclusion o,f the
period from August· 16, 1940 to November 24, 1944 under s. JS (l) of
the -Limitation Act for_ computation of the period of 12 years prescribed
under s· .. 48 of the Code. of Civil Piocedurr.
Dismfasing the Appeal to this Court~
·.
HELD,: · 1:. The word ''execution,' ins; 15 (1) embraCes all ·the
appropriate means by which a decree is .• eriforc~d.
It includes all processes
and proce~dings iff.aid of, or supplemental to execution.
[814B]
-
i
B
2. .There is no rational basis for adopting a na·rrow arid~ restricted
construction On a beneficient provision Uke s, 15 (l).
There is no reason
why I!. 15 (1) !ihould be giveil a -restricted meaning _as· allowing the benefit
to a decrce·hoider where there is a complete or ab~olute stay of executioll.
3nd not a ':partia;i stay i.e. a sfay ·which makes the decree altogether inexe..
E
eatable.
[814C]
,.
3.
Stay of any process of execution is stay of executi_on within the
,meaning of-s. 15· { 1).
Where · an injunction
or order has · preven·t~d the
detee .. holder · from execut'iog the decree, then irrespe_ctive of the parti~ular
stage of execution, or the"partic.ular
prop~rty: against \Vhich, Or the Parti .. ·
cular judgment-debtor against '\vhom, execution was stayed~ -ibe effect or
such injunction or order is . to prolong tbe life of. the decree itself by the
period during wbicb the injunction or o~der remaided inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.