M BHASKARA RAMAIAH Vs. J KESAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 falls for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There have been weighty pronouncements that the statutes of limitation belong to a class of beneficial statutes and should be interpreted liberally. It is however cautioned that they are statutes of repose, the object of which is to put an end to state and fraudulent demands. To what possible length the expressions "due diligence", "good faith" "same relief" "defect of jurisdiction" or "other causes of a like nature" occurring In Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, can liberally be construed is the precise point that has to be dealt with in this appeal. It is apparent that these expressions are of wide import and a decision on the point, to a great extent, depends on the facts of the case, and we shall presently state them. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the decree-holder" obtained a money decree in O. S. No. III of 1954 on the file of the Sub- Court, Rajahmundry on 7-2-1955 against Mamidi Butchaiah, the father of the appellant.

(2.) The said decree was transferred to the District Court for execution and the E.P. was numbered as E.P No. 27 of 1955. The Execution Petition was dismissed as not pressed. Another E.P.No. 13 of 1961 was subsequently filed and that was also dimsised on 27-3-1961. Thereafter E.P. No. 29 of 1961 was filed on 5-4-1961 for attachment of the proved debt in O.S. 41/1932 on the file of Asst. Agent Bhadrachalam, laying with the official Receiver and payable to Mamidi Butcbaiah, hereinafter referred to 'judgment debtor-1" . Attachment was ordered and confirmed on 3-7-1961. Subsequently judgment-debtor 1 died in the year 1962. Fresh execution petition (No. 54 of 1963) was filed on 27-8-1963 by the decree-holder for the relief of the sale of the proved decree debt in O.S. No 41 of 1932 against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "Judgment-debtor 2",) who was already brought on record as legal representative of judgment-debtor 1. That E P. was dismissed on 12-11-1963, holding that Judgment-debtor 1 had no saleable interest in the decree debt and that he was on record only as a trustee. Against that order the decree-holder filed C.M.A.N. 104 of 1964 in this Court and that was dismissed on 11-3-1969. Thereafter he filed the present E.P. No. 54 of 1969 on 24-7-1969, for the relief of attachment of a sum of Rs l,68,840/- lying with the Collector, West Godavari District, being the compensation payable to the appellant and others for lands taken over by the Government. The execution petition was opposed on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 12 years from the date of decree. The plea of the decree-holder was that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act and that the period between 27-8-1963 the date on which E,P. 54 of 1963 was filed, and 11-3-1969 the date of judgment of the High Court in C.M.A. 104 of 1964, has to be execluded from the period of 12 years. The learned District Judge held that the decree-holder is entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) and that the execution petition is maintainable. The present appeal is directed against the said order, by judgment-debtor 2.

(3.) Sri M. Jagannadha Rao the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the decree-holder is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) as there is no proof (1) that the dectee-holder had been prosecuting the other civil proceeding (E P.No. 54 of 1963) and the appeal in the High Court thereafter) with due diligence, (2) that the earlier and the present proceedings are for the same relief, and (3)-that the former proceeding was prosecuted in good faith in a Court, which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it. The learned counsel for the respondent decree-holder on the other hand contended that judgment-debtor I was one of the decree-holders in O.S.No. 41 of 1932, that his interest in the decree was attachable and that was how the decree-holder proceeded and filed EP. 54 of 1963with due diligence and care, and as the same was dismissed he preferred C.M.A. No, 104 of 1964 and the same was also dismissed, and that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it must be held that all the three conditions laid down-in section 14 (2) have been satisfied. It may be mentioned here that the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decree-holder did not act with due diligence and in good faith in prosecuting the former proceeding.