YELLA APPA RAO Vs. NAGAM VEERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment of our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J. with his leave raises a question relating to the interpretation of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act. The respondent filed O.S. No. 39 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kakinada, against the appellant for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts of a joint firm. A preliminary decree was passed for dissolution of" partnership and for accounts. This was followed up by a final decree, dated 1st August, 1945, under which it was declared that a sum of Rs. 507-13-11 was due to the appellant by the respondent together with costs and subsequent interest. The final decree contained a direction that it should not be executed until the requisite Court-fee was paid. The respondent carried the matter in appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada, in A.S. No. 202 of 1945 but it was ultimately dismissed on 28th June, 1946 for want of prosecution. An application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada, and this was confirmed on appeal by the Madras High Court in A. A. O. No. 663 of 1946 on 20th April, 1948.

(2.) On 12th May 1950, the appellant put in execution the final decree and it was rejected on 10th August, 1950. Another petition filed on 24th December, 1951 shared the same fate. The third execution petition (E.P. No. 228 of 1952) was filed by the appellant on 9th May, 1952. On objection being taken that the decreeholder had, not paid the Court-fee, the appellant deposited the Court-fee on 7th July, 1952.

(3.) The petition was opposed inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time, as the first execution petition was filed beyond three years of the passing of the final decree. This plea found favour with the District Munsif, with the result that he dismissed the petition. The appellant took the matter in appeal to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kakinada, but without success. The Second Appeal preferred by him to this Court was dismissed by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J. At the same time, the learned Judge granted leave under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is this order that is now under appeal.