MOHANACHANDRAN Vs. BHAVANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Privy Council observed in General Manager of Raj Durbhanga v. Ramput Singh 14 Moor's Indian Appeals 605 age page 612:

(2.) As it happens usually in the present case also, may be without much difficulty respondent secured a decree against petitioner on 29.6.1994 for recovery of money. Certain items of immovable properties belonging to the petitioner were placed under attachment before judgment. To execute that decree respondent filed E.P. No. 34 of 2002 within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act") and proceeded against some of the properties attached but the execution did not prove successful. On 11.7.2008 respondent filed Ext.P1, proclamation schedule to proceed against an item of property referred to therein and which also was placed under attachment before judgment but not included in E.P. No. 34 of 2002. Petitioner preferred objection to Ex.P1, contending that proclamation (dated 10.07.2008) has been filed on 11.07.2008 after the period of limitation prescribed for execution of a decree under Article 136 of the Act expired on 29.06.2006, Ext.P1, proclamation schedule should be treated as execution against the property mentioned therein filed beyond the prescribed time and hence barred by limitation. Petitioner filed Ext.P2, application (EA No. 354 of 2009) challenging maintainability of Ext.P1, proclamation schedule. That application was dismissed by the executing court as per Ext.P3, order which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The following question arises for a decision in this Writ Petition: