BIRCHUNDER MANICKYA Vs. HURRISH CHUNDER DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think that, in this case, the lower Court is in error, through misconstruing the meaning of the Full Bench decision--Beer Chunder Munick Bahadoor v. Ramkishen Shaw 14 B.L.R. 370 : S.C. 23 W.R. 128.

(2.) The plaintiff sued the defendant for rent due for the year 1279 at the same rate which had been decreed to him for the previous year 1278, in a suit which he had brought against the same defendant for rent of the same property, and the plaintiff relied upon that former decree as almost conclusive evidence of the proper amount due to him from the defendant.

(3.) It seems that this decree for the rent of 1278 was obtained by the plaintiff ex parte, the defendant not appearing at the trial; and it is admitted that no execution had ever been taken out by the plaintiff upon the decree, and that his right to take out execution had been barred by limitation.