SITAL PRASAD SHUKUL Vs. BABU LAL SHUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an execution case. The simple issue involved is whether the execution of the decree in question is barred by limitation. The plaintiff instituted a partition suit valuing it at Rs. 76,887-1-8. The suit went up to the High Court and the final decree was passed on 31 January 1923. The execution relates to the costs of the suit awarded by the High Court amounting to Rs. 649-11-0. Several applications for execution were filed and dismissed. The last one about which no objection can be raised was the fourth one taken out on 27th August 1924, and disposed of on 17 September 1924.

(2.) After that on 26 July 1927, the appellants asked the Subordinate Judge of Chupra, who shad decided the case, to send the decree for execution to the Munsif of Siwan. It is obvious that so far as this province is concerned the Munsif of Siwan had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, as it was passed in a suit beyond the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the learned Subordinate Judge did as a matter of fact transfer the decree for execution to the Munsif of Siwan. The decree holders appellants took out two executions in that Court. The second one pi them was disposed of on 25 July 1929. In that execution the judgment-debtors took an objaction about the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Siwan to execute the decree. The learned Munsif decided against them, but on appeal the objection was upheld, and it was decided that the Court of the Munsif of Siwan had no jurisdiction to execute that decree. Afterwards the present execution was started on 25 March 1930, and this execution is the subject matter of the present appeal.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the execution was barred, holding that the application of 26 July 1927, asking the Subordinate Judge of Chupra to transfer the decree for execution to the Munsif at Siwan was not a step- in-aid of execution. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Amrit Lal v. Murlidhar AIR 1922 Pat. 188. He has also discussed the question whether the decree-holders were entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of Section 14, Lim. Act, and to deduct the period during which they were engaged in executing their decree in the Court of the Munsif of Siwan and has held that there was no good faith on the part of the decree holders and therefore Section 14, Lim. Act, had no application. It is not necessary for us to decide about the applicability of Section 14, Lim. Act. It is clear on the facts before us that Section 14 even if applicable will be of no help to the decree-holders.