JUGOL KISHORE MARWARI Vs. CHINTAMONI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Hughly, dated the 8th January 1913. The sole question raised by the appellants in this case is whether the application for execution of a certain decree is barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has held that it is barred and the present appeal has been preferred by the decree-holders against that order.

(2.) The decree-holders obtained the decree as long ago as the 14th April 1903 in the Court of the Munsif of Govindpur in the District of Manbhum for Rs. 500. The first application for execution was made as long ago as the 23rd July 1903. That application was dismissed for default on the 5th September 1903.

(3.) The next application for execution was dated the 9th July 1906. Notice of that application was ordered to be issued on the 21st July 1906 : and, according to the appellants, the notice was actually served on the 27th July 1906, one of the decree-holders identifying the judgment-debtors to the serving peon. It is essential for the appellants in the present case to show that what took place on the 27th July 1906 comes under either Clause 5 or Clause 6 of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act. How the appellants can say that the mere fact that one of them went along with the serving peon to identify the judgment-debtors was itself a step-in-aid of execution, I do not understand. If a person goes along with the serving peon to identify a party, that would not be a step-in-aid of execution but is one of the necessary preliminaries to enable the Court to deal with the matter when the party, if served, comes before it. In the present case, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the 21st July 1906 when notice was directed to be issued, was the proper date from which he should calculate the time from which the period of limitation commenced to run. I think the learned Judge rightly rejected the 27th July, 1906 as being that date on the ground that one of the decree-holders went along with the serving peon to identify the judgment-debtors. That application was also dismissed for default on the 4th August 1906 :