HARGOVIND FULCHAND Vs. NAJA SURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are few and undisputed. The plaintiff obtained an instalment decree on the l6th September 1910 against the defendants, who are Talukdars. The first instalment became payable on the 1st April 1911, and in consequence of the default in payment the whole amount became payable on that day. The plaintiff presented an application for execution on the 1st April 1914, but it was rejected on the 15th June 1914 as the certificate of the managing officer required by Section 29E of the Gujarat Talukdars Act was not produced. Subsequently the plaintiff applied to the managing officer for a certificate in August 1914 and obtained a certificate on the 29th August 1914. He then made the present application for execution on the 28th February 1916 accompanied with the certificate of the managing officer.

(2.) Both the lower Courts have dismissed this application on the ground that it has been made more than three years after the amount became payable under the decree, and that the intermediate application of the 1st April 1914 cannot save the bar of limitation as it is not in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, the certificate under Section 29E not having been produced with it.

(3.) This appeal was adjourned to ascertain the dates of the notice under Section 29B and of the submission of the decree-claim . It is now admitted that the notice under Section 29B was published on the 5th November 1908, and the claim in respect of which the decree was subsequently passed wan submitted on the 27th April 1909. It is not disputed before us that apart from the submission of the claim before the date of the decree, in fact there was no submission of the decree-claim before August, 1914, when the application for the certificate under Section 29E was made.