SANTI RANJAN DASS GUPTA versus M/S DASIJRAM MIRZAMAL

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 11-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SANTI RANJAN DASS GUPTA 
v. 
M/S DASIJRAM MIRZAMAL 
March 11, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. JI. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
~25 
Indian Limitation Act, 1908, :1. 15, whether attachment of decree amount1 to 
•stay' within the meaning of-Execution application struck off-Another appli-
cation on decree becoming executable, if continuation of t.he previous one. 
A 
B 
The respondent obtained a m.oney-decree against the appellant, from the 
Subordinate judge, Gauhati, and applied for its execution. The appellant applied 
for an adjustment of the decree, <:IIld the respondent's application for execution 
was dismissed. 
The appellant then obtained a' decree from the 
Subordinate 
C 
Judge, Nowgong, against the respondent, and in its execution, got his cGauhati 
decree attached. The appellant then withdrew his adjustment-application. 
The High Court allowed the respondent's appeal for execution of the Gauhati 
decree. The Subordinate Judge, Gauhati, struck off his original execution-
application from the file. 
Thereafter, the attachment order ceased to be opera-
tive on account of the High Court's allowance of the respondent's appeal in 
the Nowgong matter, and the respondent again applied for execution of the 
Gauhati decree, but the SuborJinate Judge, Gauhati, dismissed the application 
D 
.. 
as time-barred. The High Court allowed his appeal and directed the execu-
tion to proceed. The appellant contended before this Court that attachment 
of the respondent's decree did not amount to a 'stay' within the meaning of 
S. 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, and therefore, his second application for 
execution was barred by limitation, not having been filed within three years 
of the first one being struck off by the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : ( 1) The order obtained by the appellant attaching the decree of 
the respondent precluded the respon.dent from executing the decree during the 
Y 
time th.: rittnchnicnt \\'as in fore::. 
There was no question of limitation because 
the application was filed within three years from 28 April, 1964, when the 
bar against execution was raised and the attachment order ceased to be opera-
tive. 
[627B~] 
(2) The order striking off the execution application was mere consigning 
E 
it to the record-room for statistical purposes. The application for execution 
F 
on 27th July, 1965, is a continuation of the old application. 
L627D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 858 of 1968. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 7-7-67 of the Assam and 
Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in Misc. 
Appeal Nos. 36 and 37 
of 1966. 
Sarjoo Prasad and A. K. Nag for the appellant. 
B. P. Maheshwari for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, CJ. Thi• appeal by certificate is from the order dated 26 
. July, 1967 of the High Court of Assam. 
The only question in this appeal is whether the responden:'s appli-
cation filed on 27 July, 1965 for excution of !he decree obtamed by 
him is barred by limitation. 
G 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
The respondent on 7 January, 1952 obtained a decree against the 
appellant for the sum of Rs. 71,980 in a money suit filed in the Court 
of Subordinate Jndge, Gauhati. On 8 December, 1956 the respondent 
decree-holder filed an application No. 89/56 for executing the said 
decree. On 15 July, 1957 the appellant, the judgment debtor, filed an 
application pleading adjustment of the decree. On 15 April, 1958 the 
judgment debtor withdrew the said application. 
On 18 December, 
1957 the Subordinate Judge Gauhati dismissed the 
decree-holder's 
application No. 89 /56. The decree-holder preferred an appeal. The 
High Court at Gauhati on 1 July, 1959 set aside the order of the 
Subordinate Judge and allowed the appeal for execution of the decree. 
Meanwhile on 18 January, 1958 the appellant judgment debtor in 
the Gauhati suit obtained a decree against the respondent for the sum 
of Rs. 1,22,000 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. 
In execution of the decree in the Nowgong suit the appellant on or 
about 29 January, 1958 obtained an attachment of the respondent's 
decree passed in the Gauhati suit. 
On 13 August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati struck off the 
execution application No. 89/56 from the file. 
• 
The respond,ent filed an appeal against the decree obtained by the 
• 
appellant in the Nowgong suit. 
The High Court on 28 April 1964 
accepted the appeal f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.