JAIDEO PRASAD Vs. GHAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the whole, after hearing the learned Counsel in this case, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the lower appellate Court is correct.

(2.) The question was a question of limitation. It seems that the decree-holder obtained a decree for possession of certain lands and also a decree for costs. On the 3 of January 1921 he sought out execution of this decree by making an application (1) for delivery of possession and (2) for attachment of certain property for the realization of his costs. On the 18 of January 1921 the decree- holder got delivery of possession by execution of a dakhalnama. On the 22nd January 1921 he was ordered to pay into Court the necessary process-fees for attachment and on that date he paid in a sum of Rs. 3-12.

(3.) It was reported after this that no property of the judgment-debtor was avail- able for attachment and so the application was infructuous. On the 16 January 1924 the decree-holder again applied for attachment of property in order to satisfy his decree for costs and ho was met with the plea of limitation.