SADHU MISIR Vs. JHINGUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case. The appellant obtained a decree on the 14th of November, 1932. The judgment debtor filed an insolvency petition on the 29th of April, 1933. He was adjudicated insolvent on the 26th of August, 1933. The adjudication was annulled on the 12th of January, 1913. Then the decree holder made an application on the 13th of September, 1945 for the execution of his decree. The judgment debtor objected that the execution application was time barred. The decree holder being outside the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act asserted that the effect of mentioning the debt in the application for insolvency was that the liability was acknowledged by the judgment debtor and that therefore a fresh period of limitation had to be computed from the date when the acknowledgment was made in the application for insolvency. Unfortunately, in the application for insolvency, the decree which had been obtained on the 14th of November, 1932 was not mentioned. Only the debt which had merged in the decree was mentioned. The judgment debtor contended that what had to be acknowledged was the right to make an application for execution and that could only be acknowledged by mentioning the decree and not by mentioning the original debt which had ceased to exist in view of the fact that the decree had come into existence in which that debt had been merged.

(2.) The contention of the judgment debtor was upheld by the court below.

(3.) It is urged before me that the mention of the debt was a sufficient acknowledgment and gave the decree holder a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Section 19 of the Limitation Act runs as follows:-