CHANDMAL Vs. BABURMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the D. H. against the order of the learned Dist. J. holding that the petition for execution preferred by him in the court of the Munsif was barred by time.

(2.) It seems that on 6-2-1942 Chandmal appellant obtained an ex parte decree against Baburmal. No appeal was preferred from this decree by the J. D. & instead he filed an application for having it set aside but it was dismissed. On appeal to the High Court, there was a compromise & an order was passed on 11-11-1943 that if Baburmal paid Rs. 40/- as costs to the D. H. within fifteen days & gave security for due performance of the decree that may be passed against him within one month, the ex parte decree will be set aside otherwise it will stand. The J. D. did not comply with this order & when an application for execution of the decree was filed on 8-4-1945, he objected on the ground that since limitation ran from the date of the decree, it was barred by time. The learned Munsif repelled this objection & held that limitation ran from the date of the order of the H. C. & accordingly, execution was not barred by time. The learned Dist. J. on appeal disagreed with this view & set aside the order passed by the learned Munsif & held that the petition for execution was barred by time as limitation ran from the date of the decree.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that according to Article 29, Mewar Limitation Act, the period of limitation was provided as below: