SURAJ PRASAD Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these are appeals by the judgment-debtor against different orders in the same execution proceedings.

(2.) One Bharat Indu died in November 1928 and his estate was taken over by the Court of Wards on behalf of his heirs and legal representatives. On 23-5-1932, the Collector, as Manager of the Court of Wards obtained a decree against the appellant. On 20-7-1934, the first application for execution was dismissed, followed by a second application dated 16-7-1937, which also was dismissed on 23-8-1937. Then a third application for execution was made on 21-8-1940, which in its turn was dismissed on 30-9-1940. More than three years after this date, a fourth application for execution was made by the Collector on 4-5-1944. On 23-12-1944, the Estate was released pending this application. The appellant then filed an objection to the application on the ground that it was barred by time. This was met by the answer that one of the decree-holders being still a minor and the other having become a major only so recently as 1-10-1944, the application was maintainable under the provisions of Section 6, Limitation Act. On 20-3-1946, the Court below disallowed the objection relying on a decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Dina Nath v. Collector of Farrukhabad, 1935 ALL. L. J. 1336 (same as A. I. R. 1936 ALL. 63, referred to in the judgment under appeal). This order is the subject of the appeal No. 257 of 1946.

(3.) On 24-3-1945, respondents 1 to 3 in appeal No. 172 applied for substitution of their names in place of the Collector. This was allowed by an order of 3-12-1945. This order is the subject of the other appeal No. 172 of 1946.