SEKHARAN Vs. APPUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff decree-holder had filed a small Cause suit based on a promissory note against the defendants. A compromise decree was passed on 21-9-1955 under which the decree amount was agreed to be paid in four instalments on 30-3-56, 30-10-56, 30-6-57 and 30-6-58. THE decree holder filed his 1st execution petition on 22-8-59. Notice was ordered, but it was dismissed for default. THEn the present application e. P. 389 of 1959 was filed on 20-10-59. THE respondents contended that the 1st execution petition not having been filed within 3 years from the date of the 1st default the execution petition was barred. THE learned Munsiff accepted the contention and dismissed the petition.

(2.) THE view of the Munsiff is wrong. Under S. 3 of Act 31/58 no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made against any agriculturist in any court before the expiration of 6 months from the commencement of this Act. THE Act came into force on 14-7-58 and no execution petition could have been filed for 6 months from that date. S. 20 provides that in computing the period of limitation for an application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt the time during which the making of the application was barred under S. 3 shall be excluded. So the decree holder gets the additional 6 months' time from 30-3-59 on which date the execution petition ought normally to have been filed after the first default.