FATECHAND RAMPRATAP MARWADI Vs. JITMAL RUPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions in this appeal are, jurisdiction and limitation.

(2.) The respondents obtained a decree for money in the Court of Tasgaon in the Satara district on October 29, 1921, and had it transferred for execution to the Court of the Native State of Kolhapur. They were unable to obtain satisfaction there, and on December 8, 1928, they applied to have the execution there stopped and the decree to be returned to the Tasgaon Court. As the proceedings in execution were infructuous in Taegaon, they had execution transferred from Tasgaon to Nasik on March 9, 1924, and withdrew it for non-satisfaction of March 18, 1924. The darkhast they filed in the Tasgaon Court on January 25, 1924, had been dismissed similarly on their own application. In 1928 the decree-holder applied to the Tasgaon Court again to transfer the execution proceedings to the Court of Kolhapur. It was thus transferred accordingly on February 18, 1925. On April 6, 1926, the decree-holder asked the Tasgaon Court to reoall the darkhast and that application was granted on the same date. The proceedings were not, however, returned from Kolhapur till August 30, 1926. On April 15, 1926, the respondent filed the present darkhast at Tasgaon and applied for execution by arrest of one of the judgment-debtors. He was arrested, and on May 16, 1926, he paid the decretal debt into Court. On June 8 1926, the appellants appeared in the Tasgaon Court under Order XXI, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, and resisted the darkhast, firstly, on the ground that the Tasgaon Court had no jurisdiction before the return from Kolhapur of the proceedings with the certificate of non-satisfaction under Section 41 of the Civil P. C., and, secondly, on the ground of limitation, and applied for a refund of the amount paid by the judgment-debtor arrested.

(3.) The trial Court upheld the objection on the ground of jurisdiction but did not record a finding on the question of limitation. In appeal the District Court held that there was no bar of jurisdiction or limitation and set aside the order of the trial Court. The judgment-debtors appeal.