KUNHIKUTTY Vs. MOIDEENKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from orders passed in execution on the objections raised by the judgment debtor that the execution of the decree is barred by reason of the provision in S. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THIS contention found favour with the execution court and the execution petition moved by the respondent was dismissed. In appeal however the learned District judge reversed the decision of the execution court holding that there is no bar, and allowed execution to proceed.

(2.) COUNSEL on behalf of the appellant has challenged this decision. He has questioned not only the principle relied on by the District judge, which incidentally we are not going to refer to or rely on, for we think the case can be and ought to be decided on another principle, but challenged the submission made by the respondent that by virtue of S. 4 of the interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 the right which it is said had vested in the respondent by virtue of S. 6 (2) of the Kerala Agriculturists' debt Relief Act, 1958 as it stood before its amendment by Act 2 of 1961, is saved. Even this position we are not going to consider in this appeal for we think there is a principle, which we shall state presently, relied on by a division Bench of this Court in Velayudhan and others v. Gokulan and others reported in 1964 KLT. 600, which must answer the issue in this case, in favour of the respondent.

(3.) THE principle is that when by a statute it has become impossible to take action for the recovery of a debt whether it be by instituting a suit, or by filing an execution application for the realisation of the amount decreed, the period of limitation prescribed by the Law of limitation ceases to run and remains suspended till that disability is removed. This has been clearly stated by Sir Raymond Evershed M. R. in Bell and another v. Gosdan reported in 1950 Vol. I of all England Law Reports 266.