S.V. KRISHNIER Vs. A.R. RAMCHANDRA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the petitioner in the lower court, who was the assignee from the 39th creditor in certain proceedings under the Debt Conciliation Act, and who filed an execution petition for sale of properties. The petition was dismissed upon the main ground that it was barred by limitation. The actual question involved turns upon the interpretation and application of Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act to the facts of this case. The broad facts which are required for our present purpose are as follows :

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the appellant filed R.P. No. 238 of 1948 in the Court below for sale of the charged properties. This petition was dismissed, and the matter was taken up in appeal to the District Court. We are not now concerned with the details of further proceedings at that stage. It is sufficient to note that the matter came up to this court before Mack J. in A. A. O. No. 415 of 1931. The decision of Mack J. and the grounds upon which the learned Judge based that decision, will be found stated and discussed in the Bench decision of this court in Ramasami Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyar, : AIR1957Mad431 , which was a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mack J. The learned Chief Justice (delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench) held that the provisions of the Limitation Act could not be extended by analogy or principle to include the case of an agreement before the Debt Conciliation Board registered under Section 14 (2) of the Debt Conciliation Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents (Sri Kuppuswami Iyer) would attempt to support the decision of the lower court also upon the question of bona fides. According to him, the lower court is in error upon this point, and the appellant had no bona fides, in launching these several proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction. However this might be, it is really not necessary for me to proceed into a discussion of this aspect for it seems to me that this appeal can very adequately be disposed of upon the matter of limitation, regarding which the authorities are perfectly clear and explicit.