GUIZARI LAL BHARGAVA Vs. MURARI LAL BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This execution first appeal is from the order dated January 7, 1965 of the Sub-Judge, I Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the appellant's objections and held that the execution application filed on behalf of the decree-holder on April 27, 1963 was within time. The decree in this case was passed on January 8, 1960 on the basis of an award dated August 8, 1959.

(2.) The relevant portions of the award, which was made a rule of the court and was incorporated in the decree, provided, inter alia in its operative part as follows :

(3.) Mr. R.L. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor-appellant submitted that although there is only one decree, it covers several distinct items for which separate suits could have been filed. The award, which is now incorporated in the decree has independently dealt with each separate item. It is thus a case of several decrees having been passed although they have been set out in one decree Under these circumstances the rule of limitation, contended the learned counsel, would be applicable separately to each item of the decree and an application for execution of the decree in respect of the sum recoverable under one item would not, under Article 183, clause (5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, protect from the bar of Limitation, the decree in respect of sum recoverable under other items of the decree. In support he relied on Dhirendra Nath Sarkar v, Nischintayoro Com pany In that case, one decree had been passed in respect of arrears of rent recoverable in respect of three separate tenancies held by the defendants. The sums due in respect of each of the tenancies had been separately specified in the decree itself It was held, the position was precisely the same as if the plantiff had brought three distinct suits against the defendants, one in respect of each tenancy and had obtained three different decree. The rule of limitation was held to apply separately to each sum decreed against each tenancy. The exection application in respect of sum leviable in respect of one of the tenancies could not protect, it was held, the decree in respect of the sum recoverable under the other tenancies, from the bar of limitation.