RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's appeal from the appellate order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissing the objections preferred by him, though allowed in the first instance by the first Court.

(2.) THE Respondent, Gian Chand, obtained a decree for Rs. 625/ - against the Appellant, Raghunath Singh on 26th of July, 1948. Various attempts were made to execute the decree but the last application was consigned to the record room on 27th of August, 1951. On the same day the decree -holder filed a new application for execution and a house belonging to the judgment -debtor was attached. In the first place, it was stated by the judgment -debtor that the house belonged to his father and could not be attached in execution proceedings. It was further objected that the application for execution was barred by time. The first objection, though it prevailed with the executing Court, need not detain us any longer as this is no longer a live issue between the parties. On. the question of limitation, however, the two Courts below have taken different views. The trial Court has sustained the objection and dismissed the execution application holding it to be barred by time while the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, in appeal, has taken a contrary view and in the result the objections of the judgment -debtor have been dismissed. I may now set out briefly the basis on which the plea of limitation has been raised on behalf of the judgment -debtor. Normally, under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree does not become barred by time for execution before the expiration of twelve years from the date of the decree which is sought to be executed. An exception to this rule has been engrafted under the Punjab Debtors' Protection Act (Act No. 2 of 1936), Sub -section (1) of Section 11 of which lays down:

(3.) THE Appellant claims to be a judgment -debtor under Sub -section (2) of Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act which is to this effect: