CHATURVEDULA VENKATA LAKSHMINARASIMHAM AND ANR. Vs. SHA VEN VAKTAJI GOMAJIAND CO., SAIT VUMMAJI MANRUPCHAND FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil miscellaneous second appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of two decrees. The decree -holders are different but the material judgment -debtors are the same. The facts in the two cases are so identical and the execution of the two decrees proceeded on lines so closely parallel that it is sufficient for the disposal of both the appeals to state the facts in one of them.

(2.) C .M.S.A. No. 15 of 1947 arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 12 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. The first of the petitions to execute this decree was E.P. No. 67 of 1934 which was dismissed on 24th July, 1934. On 8th September, 1934, the decree -holder applied in E.P. No. 127 of 1934 for rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale to be held in E.P. No. 29 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada and in case no such sale was held for attachment and sale of the Immovable property mentioned in the schedule attached. E.P. No. 127 of 1934 was dismissed on 16th July, 1935, with the endorsement,

(3.) IN support of his decision, on this matter the learned District Judge relied on an observation of Leach, G.J., in Ayi v. : AIR1945Mad139 . The question in that case was whether an application to take a step -in -aid of execution within the meaning of Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act should be made in a pending execution petition. This was answered in the negative. While referring to the change that had been made in Article 182(5) in 1927 and to the provision which corresponded to Article 182(5) in the previous Limitation Act, the learned Chief Justice pointed out that under Article 182(5) as amended in 1927 the starting point is the final order, while previously it was the date of the application itself. Then occurs the following sentence: