MT BIBI ZALIKHAN Vs. RAMA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Patna, dated 14 September 1939, confirming an order of the Munsif of Patna, dated 14th March 1939.

(2.) The appeal is by a judgment-debtor, who had contended unsuccessfully before the Courts below in an application under Section 47, Civil P.C., that execution of the decree was barred by limitation. The circumstances can best be made clear by a table of dates.

(3.) From this table it appears that the present execution case was filed within 3 years of the attainment of majority but more than 12 years after the dismissal of the previous execution case. The contention of the respondent was that limitation was saved under Secs.6 and 7, Limitation Act. The sole point made by the appellant is that execution was barred under the provisions of Section 48, Civil P.C. The only question for decision, therefore, is whether Section 48, Civil P.C., overrides Secs.6 and 7, Limitation Act, 1908, or vice versa. The learned District Judge has dealt with this point very briefly as follows: Now so far as Section 48, Civil P.C., is concerned there is a series of decisions following the Privy Council decision in Phoolbas Koonwur V/s. Lalla Jogeshur Sahay (75) 1 Cal 226 in which it has been consistently laid down that where a decree is passed in favour of a person who is a minor on that date and he attains majority more than 12 years after that date, Section 6, Limitation Act, applies not only to the periods prescribed by the Limitation Act but also to the periods fixed by the Civil P.C. I am therefore not prepared to accept the contention that the decree in question is barred by Section 48, Civil P.C.