BAHADURSINGH Vs. DIWAN MOUJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the judgment-debtors against the decree-holders challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, on 26-7-1958, reversing the order of the 2nd Civil Judge, Hoshangabad, dated 6-1-1958, in an execution case.

(2.) In this case, the decree-holders obtained a decree against the judgment- debtors 011 15-4-1943. The last execution petition was dismissed on 8-8-1953. While this application was pending the judgment-debtors filed an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, for recording an adjustment on 9-7-1953. This petition was opposed by the decree-holders and was ultimately disallowed on 6-4-1955. The judgment-debtors went up in appeal' which was also dismissed. The decree-holders subsequently filed the present execution on 5-4-1957. It is common ground between the parties that unless the decree- holders are allowed the time during which the judgment-debtors' application for recording the adjustment was pending, the petition for execution would be barred by time. The trial Court held that the decree-holders could not get advantage of these proceedings and dismissed the execution as barred by time; but the lower appellate Court held otherwise, holding that the decree-holders were entitled to treat their objection to the petition of the judgment-debtors as a step-in-aid within the meaning of Article 182, clause (5) of the Limitation Act.

(3.) The only question which thus arises for determination in this appeal is whether the opposition of the proceedings by the decree-holders amounted to a step-in-aid. Shri A. P. Sen for the appellants-judgment-debtors contends that the proceedings could not amount to a step-in-aid, as they were not initiated by the decree-holders and did not, in any way, advance the execution proceedings. He relies upon the decision in Krishna Pattar v. Seetharama Pattar, ILR 50 Mad 49: (AIR 1926 Mad 1178). In that case it has been held that the filing of a statement by a decree-holder, objecting to the judgment-debtor's application to record satisfaction of the decree, is not a step-in-aid of execution of the decree under Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act.