RAMCHANDRA Vs. UKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order passed under Section 47, Civil P.C., holding that the application for execution dated 21st December 1925, was within time by reason of the intermediate application, for substitution of legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtors Birbal and Yado, made on 30th September 1924. The suit which was instituted by Birbal, Yado and Balaji against Uka and others for possession of certain immovable property was dismissed by the first Court on 7th May 1920 and they were made liable for defendants' costs. Their appeal was also dismissed in this Court on 9th January 1922. Thus the execution of the decree would be barred after the lapse of three years from the date of the appellate decree. The present application which is dated 21st December 1925 is, therefore, prima facie barred by time. It would be in time only if the previous application dated 30th September 1924 is treated as an application for execution or to take a step-in-aid of execution The lower Court took this view and held that the present application is within time. The judgment-debtors have appealed.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellants that under Article 182, Clause (5), Schedule 1, Limitation Act, an application which could save limitation must be one which is in accordance with law, and it must be for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution of the decree, and that in this particular case the application dated 30th September 1924 does not satisfy any of these conditions.

(3.) A minor point which was urged on behalf of Balaji individually, that limitation is not saved as against him is amply covered by Clause (7), Expl. 1, Article 182, Limitation Act. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Pleader's fee Rs. 25.