9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erties sought to be attached within the jurisdiction of this court are worth more than a lakh of rupees, and the only objection raised is a plea of limitation. A brief reference to the prior history of the proceedings taken in execution of this decree is necessary for a proper appreciation of the plea of limitation raised. 2. On 20-7-1938, a money decree was passed by the Sub Court, Arrah, for a sum of ₹ 18,540. This decree was transferred to the Civil Judge, Allahabad for execution and in that court in E.P. 38 of 1941, there was an order for attachment of a sugar mill of the judgment debtors. As a result of the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad the execution proceedings were stayed and were revived on 13-5-1950. On 11-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the view that the decree-holder will be entitled to the exclusion of time both under S. 14 and S. 15 of the Limitation Act. Even though particular reliance was not placed upon Section 14, before the learned Master, this aspect of the matter was argued before the learned Judge and he upheld the same in the view that all the facts necessary to invoke Section 14 are beyond the controversy, and that the facts found were sufficient to attract the applicability of S. 14. 5. Exhibits P. 2, P. 3 and P. 3 (a) are the records of the proceedings on the file of the Civil Judge, Allahabad and a perusal of the same would show that further proceedings by way of execution in E.P. 31 of 1948 were stayed as a result of the stay order passed by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 1938, and many of the records would not be available. We agree with Venkatadri J. that Exs. P. 2, P. 3 and P. 3 (a) contain sufficient particulars to show that there was an order of stay and also an injunction restraining the execution of the decree for the sale of the sugar mills. There is no evidence that the judgment debtors were possessed of some other properties in Allahabad. It is in this connection it becomes relevant to notice that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it was not stated that Section 15 would not apply because the judgment debtors had other properties within the jurisdiction of that court. We are satisfied that the materials furnished by the decree-holders in the instant case are sufficient and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be deemed to have become a part of the Limitation Act by a process of incorporation in Art. 181 and 182. Column 1 of Art. 181 speaks of an application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or in Section 48 C.P.C. 1908. Whether the word prescribed in Section 15(1) would apply to periods of limitations provided by other statutes or not, it is clearly indicated by Art. 181 that the period fixed by Section 48 is in pari materia with the periods of limitation provided in the schedule to the Limitation Act. Column 1 of Art. 182 further supports this view. The period of twelve years mentioned in Section 48 C.P.C. is a period of limitation. The term 'period of limitation' means the time prescribed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
