SURAJDIN Vs. SHRINIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The learned Single Judge, (B.C Verma, J. as he then was) in the cpurse of deciding this appeal on 28.7.1983 noticed conflicting decisions of the two Division Benches of this court on the question of the applicability of the provisions of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and has, therefore, referred the following questions to the Full Bench for decision.

(2.) Before pointing out the conflict of decisions between the two Division Benches of this court the factual background in which the two questions arise may be set out

(3.) in Civil Suit No 14-A of 1944, on 27 4 1946 the court of Additional District Judge, Bilaspur passed the preliminary decree for foreclosure on the mortgage deed dated 117 1932 A period of six months was fixed in the decree for payment of the decretal amount, and on failure the plaintiff should obtain a final decree The judgment-debtor failed to make the payment within time. On 17 2 1947, the decree-holder made an application for passing a final decree. The judgment debtor had preferred an appeal against the preliminary decree and the passing of final decree was stayed. The said first appeal against preliminary decree was, however, dismissed in 1957 On 28.10.1958, a final decree for foreclosure was passed ex parte. On 30 10 1958; the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte final decree. The stay application was rejected on 8 5 1959 against which the judgment- debtor preferred Misc (First) Appeal No. 98 of 1959, He also obtained stay of execution of the decree on 22 3 1960. The appea against rejection of the application for setting aside ex parte decree was, however, dismissed on 27 1 1961