PARMA NAND Vs. KALYAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises in the following circumstances: The appellant parmanand obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs. 820/- and costs from the court of the District Judge, Multan, against Kanhaiya Lal, father of respondent 1 kalu Ram and grand-father of respondent 2 Faqir Chand. The decree was passed on 18-1-1947 and does not appear to have been put into execution at Multan. As a result of the partition, the appellant as well as the respondents came over to India as displaced persons. After the Displaced Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act XXV of 1949 came into operation, the decrec-holder, filed an execution application on 3-1-1950 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Sonepat and obtained a transfer certificate for Panipat. On 3-11-1951, the execution application was filed at Panipat and although a process was ordered to issue, the decree-holder committed default in paying the process fee with the result that the execution application was consigned to record room on 3-5-1952. The decree-holder then made the present application for execution on the 29th of March 1954 in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Panipat. The judgment-debtors raised objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, to the executability of the decree and urged that Act XXV of 1949 having been repealed the execution application could not proceed. The learned Subordinate judge gave effect to the objections and on the 22nd of Juno 1955 dismissed the execution application. The decree-holder went up in appeal to the Court of the district Judge, Karnal, but the appeal was also dismissed on 4-2-1956. The decree-holder has now come up to this Court in execution second appeal.

(2.) MR. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the decree-holder appellant, submits that section S of Act XXV of 1949 expressly lays down that upon the expiry of the Act, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) shall apply as if the Act had then been repealed by a Central Act, He then refers to Clauses (c) and (e) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and urges that the repeal of the Act does not affect any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred under the same and further that the repeal of the Act does not affect any legal proceedings or remedies in respect of any such rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities. His contention is that the Act had given him a right or privilege to execute the decree in India and that the repeal of the Act did not take away his said right and privilege. Mr. Roop Chand, learned counsel for the respondents, has drawn my attention to Section 59 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (LXX of 1951) which lays down as under:

(3.) IN Act XXV of 1949 "displaced Person" had been defined as meaning