RAMLAL Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings. The only question involved is that of limitation and therefore it would be proper to give the relevant dates.

(2.) THE decree-holder-respondent Jagan-nath obtained a decree against three persons Ram Chander, Ram Lal and Ram Karan from the court of the Munsiff Chittorgarh on 17th January, 1940. On 8th of January, 1941, he took out execution or the said decree. When the execution proceedings were pending, two of the defendants, Ramchander and Ramlal filed two separate appeals against the decree in the court of the District Judge, Bhilwara. Ram Chander's appeal was accepted and the suit was dismissed against him. Ramlal's appeal was only partially accepted and the decree was reduced from Rs. 942/-to Rs. 706/-Ramlal preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Mewar but with no success. His appeal was dismissed on 9th July, 1942. THE petition for execution which was originally filed on 8th January, 1941. was dismissed on 27th December, 1945, on the ground that the decree of the original court was modified by the court of the District Judge and the High Court and that the modified decree alone could be executed. THE decree-holder therefore, presented a second application for execution on 9th January, 1946. It was, however, dismissed for default on 10th October, 1946. He' therefore, presented a third application for execution on 17th April, 1948. Against this application, the judgment-debtor raised various objections one of them being that it was barred by limitation. This objection was turned down by the Munsiff. An appeal was preferred to the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara. THE counsel for the appellant there conceded that the execution petition was within time and, therefore, that appeal was dismissed. THE judgment-debtor, however, came to the Court of Rajasthan and it was argued that an admission of a counsel on a question of law was not binding on the parties. This argument found favour with the learned Judge who heard the appeal. He remanded the case to the District Judge to decide the question of limitation on merits. THE appeal has now been heard and decided by the learned District Judge, Partapgarh to whom the case had gone on account of change in jurisdiction. He dismissed the appeal on 1st August, 1952, holding that the application was within limitation. It is against this judgment that the judgment-debtor has come here in second appeal.