VALA SUBRAMANIA PILLAI Vs. SANKARA SUBBU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the Subordinate Judge has fallen into the error of holding that under Art. 179(4) of the 2nd Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877, the limitation period begins to run from the date on which some step is taken in aid of execution, and that some order of the Court is accordingly necessary to initiate that step. But it is clear from Art. 179(4) itself that the period starts with the application to the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution and if the application is in accordance with law and if its purpose is to move the Court to take a step-in- aid of execution it makes no difference whether the Court does or does not take the step demanded.

(2.) If then the application of the 3 October 1905 was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution and was in accordance with law, no order of the Court is required to bring Article 179(4) into operation, and inasmuch as the law required the issue of a notice before execution could be had, the application presented with the bulla for the issue of the notice was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. Art. 179(5) has no application because this is not a case where a notice under Section 218 of Act XIV of 1882 was issued and that article is expressly confined to such cases.

(3.) I reverse the order of the lower Court and remand the execution petition for disposal according to law.