OM CHAND Vs. LALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by judgment -debtors against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Mandi, rejecting their objections under S.47, C.P.C., learned counsel urges that the pending execution petition is time -barred and the finding of the Court below to the contrary is erroneous.

(2.) To understand the point at issue, the following facts may be stated: Lalman (the respondent here) filed a suit against Brikam Das, Mayadhar (father of the appellants) and one Ramditta Mal for the recovery of Rs.8,250/ -, with interest. The suit was dismissed as against Ramditta Mal on 23 -10 -1992 B., presumably, under O.1, R.10, C.P.C. The suit then proceeded against the remaining defendants. On 13 -12 -1992 B., the latter made a statement, admitting the plaintiffs claim, and, thereupon, a decree was passed against them on the same day for Rs.8,250/ -, plus interest and costs. It would appear that the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 23 -10 -1992 (dismissing the suit as against Ramditta Mal), went up in appeal to the Ijlas -i -alia of Mandi. That appeal was rejected on 28 -5 -1999 B

(2.) The point for determination, therefore, is whether limitation for executing the decree against the appellants started running on 13 -12 -1992 B., when the decree was passed against them, or on 28 -5 -1999 B., when the Ijlas -i -alia dismissed plaintiff Lalmans appeal and upheld the trial Courts order, dismissing the suit so far as it lay against Ramditta Mal