9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Import of the order dated 24-1-1963 and whether it amounts to an implied adjudication of the decree's executability and limitation. 2. Applicability of constructive res judicata to bar objections raised by the judgment-debtors at a later stage of the execution proceeding. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Import of the order dated 24-1-1963: The court examined whether the order dated 24-1-1963 impliedly adjudicated that the decree was executable and the execution application was within the limitation period. According to the executing court's order, the judgment-debtors did not appear on 24-1-1963, and the court directed the decree-holder to take further steps. The court did not explicitly order the decree to be executed, which would have been required under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The court noted that the third execution case was filed more than three years after the dismissal of the second execution case, making it prima facie barred by limitation. The court concluded that the order dated 24-1-1963 did not constitute an adjudication on the maintainability of the execution application, and hence, the judgment-debtors' objections were rightly entertained. 2. Applicability of Constructive Res Judicata: The principle of constructive res judicata, as per Explanation IV to Section 11 of the C.P.C., deems that any matter which might and ought to have been raised in a former suit shall be considered as having been directly and substantially in issue in such suit. The court affirmed that this principle applies to execution proceedings. The court referred to several precedents, including decisions from the Privy Council, various High Courts, and the Supreme Court, to support this view. The court noted that if a judgment-debtor does not appear or fails to raise objections to the execution application when served with notice under Order 21, Rule 22, and the court orders the execution to proceed, it is deemed that the plea of limitation has been raised and rejected. Consequently, the judgment-debtor would be barred from raising the plea of limitation at a later stage of the same execution proceedings. However, in this case, since the court did not pass an order directing the decree to be executed on 24-1-1963, the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply, and the judgment-debtors were entitled to raise their objections. Conclusion: The court concluded that the order dated 24-1-1963 did not amount to an adjudication that the execution application was within the limitation period. The judgment-debtors' objections were validly entertained, and the execution application was barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
