KAMALAMMA Vs. TRIVANDRUM PERMANENT BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition concerns a question of limitation. The respondent herein filed a suit O. S. No. 20 of 1960 for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 5-7-1966. THIS decree was enforceable only against the defendants 1 to 12,14 and 16 and their assets. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the said decree. He filed an appeal against that decree and in that appeal the plaintiff claimed a decree against all the defendants in the suit namely defendants 1 to 34 and also against the assets of all the defendants. In appeal the trial court decree was confirmed. It was on 24-10-1972.

(2.) THE Counsel for the plaintiff tells me that execution of the decree was sought in the year 1976. But later the execution petition was not prosecuted. Now the plaintiff has filed E. P. No. 29 of 1980. This is dated 19-4-1980.

(3.) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner based his argument on the new and different phraseology used in Art. 136 of the new Limitation Act for the purpose of reckoning the starting point of limitation. He submits the change effected in the language to denote the starting point of limitation in art. 136 is significant and that has to be examined for a proper valuation of bis submission.