MUSAMMAT KONSILLA Vs. ISHRI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are: Musammat Konsilla on the 24 of November 1893, obtained a decree against one Ishri Singh. This decree shefirst put into execution on the 24 of January 1895. Several other applications were made by her for execution. All these were infructiious but in each one of them apparently some step was taken in aid of execution and the present application was instituted within three years of a previous application for execution to a proper Court in accordance with law. On the 25 of February 1909, she instituted the proceedings out of which the present appeal has arisen. The judgment-debtor at once took plea based upon Section 48 of Act No. V of 1908 that as more than twelve years had expired from the date of the decree, no order for execution could be made. Both the Courts below have accepted this plea and summarily rejected the application. They were of opinion that Section 48 above mentioned did bar execution.

(2.) In appeal before us, it is urged that Section 48 does not apply to these proceedings, inasmuch as the decree was passed in 1893 and these proceedings are in regular continuation of proceedings instituted in 1895 both coming into force at a time when there was no provision of law limiting execution other than Art. 179 of Schedule II of Act No. XV of 1677. It may at once be conceded that if Act V of 1908 had not been placed upon the Statute Book, and if Act No. XIV of 1882 were still in force, the present proceedings would not be barred.

(3.) This Court held in Pahlwan, Singh V/s. Narain Das 22 A. 401 that a decree like the present in whi6h provision is made for the enforcement of the decree against immovable property did not come within the provision of Section 230 of Act No. XIV of 1882. Section 48 of Act No. V of 1908 has been so worded as to include and govern applications for execution of all decrees save and excepting only decrees for injunctions.