PALAI CENTRAL BANK Vs. K A SAITHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree on which this claim is based had become barred by time even before the presentation of the winding up petition on 8 8 1960 and hence this claim must be dismissed. The decree was passed by the District Court, Kottayam on 23 10 1951, and, so far as the respondents are concerned it was confirmed in appeal on 3 2 1955. The latter date is therefore the starting point for limitation under Art.182 of the Act of 1903. The decree was transferred to the District Court, Parur for execution, and an application for execution made to that court was dismissed on 13-8-1956 for failure to prosecute. That was more than three years before the presentation of the winding up petition. The liquidator relies on an application for execution made to the Sub Court, Parur on 12 8 1959 and which was dismissed on 14 11 1959 to give him a fresh starting point, the District Court, Parur having been abolished on 1 11 -1955. But the Sub Court, Parur was neither the court which passed the decree within the meaning S.37 of the Civil Procedure Code nor a court to which it had been sent for execution so as to enable it to execute the decree under S.39 of the Code. On the abolition of the District Court, Parur its jurisdiction was added to that of the District Court, Trichur and later, on the establishment of the District Court, Ernakulam it was transferred to the jurisdiction of that court. The transfer of business under S.150 of the Code could therefore have been only to the District Court, Trichur, and no attempt has been made by the liquidator to show that there was a transfer of business to the Sub Court, Parur so as to make that court the court to which the decree had been sent for execution. The application for execution made on 12 8 1959 was not made to a proper court and is therefore of no avail to furnish a fresh starting point under Art.182 (5). The last application made to a proper court was as we have seen dismissed on 13 8 1956 more than three years before the date of the presentation of the winding up petition. The decree was therefore barred on that date and the subsequent application made on 30 3 1962 even if it be to the proper court was barred by time, S.45C of the Banking Regulation Act notwithstanding.