9911796707
TMI Blog1925 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d part of the property situated in the Meerut district was sold at an auction and purchased by Sarvi Begam on the 25th of March 1908. An order absolute under the old Code was passed on the 10th of August 1908. Sarvi Begam, the purchaser, was, however, not impleaded till then. Subsequently Sarvi Begam made a gift of a portion of her interest in favour of Taimur Ali Shah some time in the year 1325 Fasli corresponding to 1918. 3. The decree-holder first proceeded to execute his decree in respect of the properties situated in Bulandshahr. These execution proceedings went on for several years and part of the decretal amount was realized by sale of the properties situated in that district. Ultimately on the 13th of October 1922 the decree-holder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Konsilla v. Ishri Singh (1910) 32 All 499. That case was certainly in favour of the view which he took, but for reasons which we proceed to mention that authority is now no longer binding on us. It cannot be doubted that although the decree was passed at a time when the old Civil P.C. was in force the application for execution of it is made at a time when the new Code is in force. The law of procedure and limitation applicable to an application for execution would be the law actually in force at the time when the application is made. This application is undoubtedly under Order 21, Rule 11, of the new Code, and there seems to be no good ground for holding that Section 48, which is a part of that very Code, is inapplicable to this applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court and held that the law of limitation applicable to a suit or proceeding is the law in force at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding unless there is a distinct provision to the contrary. In view of this authoritative pronouncement we are no longer bound by the views expressed in the case of Konsilla v. Ishri Singh (1910) 32 All 499. We may further point out that this view has been accepted by the High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay and Patna: vide Bisseshur Sonamat v. Jasoda Lal (1913) 40 Cal 704 Gopaldas Ganpatdas v. Tribhovan Jethiram AIR 1921 Bom 40 and Krishna Dayal v. Gir Sakina Bibi AIR 1917 Pat 485. 6. The next argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the present application is not a fresh appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
