RAM ANUGRAH RAUT Vs. GIRJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by the decree-holders against an order passed in their execution case holding that the execution was barred by limitation. The only question involved in these cases is about the correct interpretation of Article 182 (5), Limitation Act, and whether, upon its correct interpretation, the execution can be said to be barred by time. These appeals are directed against the same order which was passed by the Court below on the respective objections of the judgment-debtors.

(2.) The material dates in this case, which are not in dispute, are as follows: 7-6-1941. Final decree. 27-4-1943. First execution case No. 51 of 1943 taken out; question of valuation raised, and that objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 82 of 1943. 9-12-1944. Miscellaneous Case No. 82 of 1943 disposed of; Court below accepted the valuation given by the decree-holders in respect of lot Nos. 5 to 8 and 10; valuation of the decree-holders in regard to lot Nos. 1 to 4 and 9 was not accepted. It was further directed that lot Nos. 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 should be sold first to satisfy the decree. Both sides filed appeals to this Court against that order. 5-3-1948. Both the appeals were dismissed by this Court. 13-12-1944. There being no stay of the proceedings in execution, the executing Court ordered the decree-holders to take further steps by 2-1-1945. No steps having been taken by that date, the executing Court extended the time, up to 15-24945. 15-2-1945. Execution case dismissed. 13-5-1948. Present execution case No. 33 of 1948 taken out. The respondents-judgment-debtors filed objections in several Miscellaneous cases which have given rise to these appeals.

(3.) The contention of the judgment-debtors is that the execution case is barred by time, having been taken out more than three years after the dismissal of the previous execution case on 15-2-1945. The decree-holders, on the other hand, contend that, under Article 182 (5), Limitation Act, the limitation is saved because, under that Article, the time will start to run from 5-3-1948, the date of the final order in regard to the valuation matter made by this Court on appeals by the parties. They submit that, looked at from any point of view, the order of this Court dismissing the miscellaneous appeals, arising out of the previous execution case, is the final order upon the application in execution as also the final order upon the application for taking steps in aid of execution; and further that the objection of the judgment-debtors is barred by constructive 'res judicata' inasmuch as when the present execution was started, notice was served upon the judgment-debtors and when they appeared, not only that they took no objection to the execution but they submitted to the execution by making payment for costs, as ordered by the Court, and they asked for instalments for payment of the decree and also deposited a certain sum of money towards the satisfaction of the decree.