PRABHA DIAL Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IQBAL Ahmad, Member 1. The question for consideration in the present appeal is whether an appln. for execution, dated 25 -7 -1999, was within time or was barrad by limitation and on the answerto that question depends the fate of this appeal.

(2.) THE decree under execution is a simple money decree, dated 15 -8 -1988 in favour of Mani Ram Shah and Sundae Shah against the J. D. applts.

(3.) THE next appln, for execution was filed by the two D. Hs. on 29 -8 -1994, and the execution Ct. on 2 -9 -1994, ordered the previous file, which had been consigned to the record room, to be sent for. On an examination of the previous execution file the Ct. took note of the fact that the house had no been released from attachment and in due coarse ordered the house to be put to sale. The bid offered was again low and on 11 -8 -1995, the Ct. ordered that 'fresh auction be made.' The house again appears to have been put to sale bus the price offered was, in the opinion of the Ct. inadequate and on 27 -10 -1995, the Ct. directed the counsel for the D. H. 'to instruct his client to increase the bid.' In the meantime Maniram Shah, one of the D.Hs., died and an appln. to bring his legal representatives upon the record was filed. The caee was then adjourned on various dates to enable the D. Hs. to deposit process -fee for the issue of notices as regards the appln for substitution of names as also for the payment of the fee for the issue of sale proclamation. The D. Hs. inspite of various adjournments, did not make the required deposits, with the result that on 1 -3 -1996, the Ct. passed the following order : 'None is present. It was incumbent on the D. H. to be present to prosecute the case ... In default of D. H's presence, the case be consigned to record room as infruotuous.'