B TULSI PAT RAM Vs. NAYAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are decree-holders' appeals arising out of execution proceedings.

(2.) Of tile two decrees which are sought to be executed one was obtained on 29-5-1941 and the other on 26-9-1947. The defendants applied for setting aside these decrees. The applications were dismissed for default. Therefore, some fresh applications were made and the restoration proceedings remained pending till the 20th January 1951, when the restoration applications were finally rejected.

(3.) The decree-holders then applied for execution. One of these applications was made on 1-7-1951 and in respect of the other decree the application for execution was presented on 2-7-1951. The decree-holders prayed for attachments in both these cases. The judgment-debtors filed objections and the main objection, which has now come up for consideration is that the execution applications were barred by time. The executing court upheld the objection and dismissed the applications as barred by time and the decision was upheld in appeal by the lower appellate court. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that inasmuch as the judgment-debtors filed applications for setting aside the ex parte decree they substantially moved the court to reviews its judgment and the order passed by the court declining to set aside the ex parte decree was the order passed on review, within the meaning of Article 182, Clause (3) of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, which lays down the period of limitation as three years for execution of decrees mentions in varying circumstances different dates from which time would begin to run. Ordinarily the period of three years provided in the article begins to run from the date of the decree or order sought to be executed Clause (3) says :