RENTALA VEERRAZU Vs. KURUVELLA SUBHARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition I am asked "to revise the order of the District Judge of Godavari directing a rateable distribution of the proceeds of a sale of property held on the 21 March 1919 by the District Court. The petitioner obtained a decree in O.S. No. 31 of 1903 on the file of the District Court of Godavari. The counter petitioners obtained a debree in O.S. No. 200 of 1904 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Rajamundry, against the same judgment- debtor. Under the provisions of Section 63(1) of th e Civil P. C., the attached properties were brought to sale in the District Judge's Court, the District Munsif, in the meantime, stopping the sale in his Court and adjourning the execution petition put in before him pending the disposal of the matter by the higher court.

(2.) I am asked to revise the order of the DistrictJudge on two grounds: - First, that the District judge erred in entertaining an application, dated the 31 January 1919, put in by the counter petitioners asking for rateable distrubution. The point is that the application when made on the 31 January 1919 was over 12 years from the date of the decree, i.e., the 1st August 1904 unless the proceedings before the District Court can be regarded as a continuation of those before the District Munsif's court, before which latter Court there is no doubt that there was an execution petition pending at the time when the proceedings were removed to the District Court by operation of Section 63; and also, by the order of the District Munsif's Court dated the 30 January 1919, directing that the decree copy and the execution record should be ent to the Court of the District Judge.

(3.) The learned Vakil for the petitioner on these facts urges that under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application dated the 31 January 1919 is barred as it was over 12 years old.