RAM MEHAR Vs. MUKHTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 1,800 with costs and pendente lite and future interest at 6 per cent per annum. The relevant facts are that the respondent Mukhtar Singh (who has died during the pendency of this appeal and whose heirs have been brought on record) filed a Suit No. 307 of 1961, for the recovery of money against one Shiv Dayal Singh in the court of the 1st Addl. Munsif, Ghaziabad. Mukhtar Singh also moved an application for attachment of the brick kiln which belonged to the plaintiff appellant. In spite of the fact that Shiv Dayal Singh had no concern with the brick kiln the application for attachment before judgment was allowed and the whole brick kiln was attached on 18th May, 1961. The appellant preferred an objection. He was successful in part in getting a portion of the brick kiln released except one and a half lakhs bricks which were still kept under attachment. Thereafter an objection was filed under Order 21, Rule 58. C.P.C. in regard to the attachment of one and a half lakhs of bricks. These objections were dismissed. The appellant thereafter filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. for a declaration that the bricks were not liable to attachment. The said suit was decreed on 1st April, 1964, on 26th Jan. 1965 the present suit was filed for recovery of damages mentioned above. The respondent contested the suit on merits as well as on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) The trial court held that the plaintiff appellant was entitled to damages of Rs. 1,500 but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by time. This judgment of the trial court is dated 2-6-1966. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed by the appellant. The lower appellate court only heard the arguments of the parties on the question of limitation and held that the suit was barred by limitation and hence dismissed the appeal on 19-10-1966. Aggrieved against the said judgment the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Sri K. B. L. Gaur, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the view taken by the trial court as well as by the lower appellate court that the suit is barred by limitation is a view contrary to law.