PRAFULLAVADAN DINKERRAY SAIYED Vs. CHOKSHI BHUDERBHAI MATHURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the Darkhast given on 27-10-60 was in time. THE original decree was passed on 20-9-48. In 1957 there was a compromise and it was agreed that the decretal amount may be paid in instalments. THE Court recorded this compromise below the decree. THE lower Court accepted the contention that on account of this fact there is a subsequent order of the Court directing the payment of money in instalments and therefore under Section 48(i)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, limitation would run from the date of default in making the payment of any instalment. Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, reads as follows:

(2.) THE appeal is, therefore, " allowed, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the Darkhast is dismissed. No order as to costs.