KOCHIKKA Vs. KUNJU PENNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the decree holder's application for attachment and sale of movable property belonging to defendants 7 and 8 is barred under S.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The decree was passed on 16-9-1938. The execution petition now pending is one filed on 4-11-1952 which may be deemed to be one in continuation of the previous execution petition filed on 13-2-1950 which was not disposed of judicially. The application for attachment of movables was made only on 25-10-1957. The courts below have held that this being an application for attachment of fresh movables filed more than twelve years after the date of the decree, the application was barred under S.48, Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holder has, therefore, preferred this second appeal.

(3.) One of the grounds pressed in the courts below was that the decree holder was entitled to claim exclusion of certain periods under S.48(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was not pressed in the second appeal.