Maharja Guru Mahadeva Ashram Prosad Sahi Bahadur vs Mahabir Sukul and Others

Adami, J.—This is an appeal against an Order of the Subordinate Judge of Saran rejected an objection put forward by the appellant in execution proceedings. A decree was obtained on the 29th January 1914 and the decree-holder made his first application for execution of the decree on the 29th January 1917. The application failed to show certain particulars, for instance column 8, showing the amount of the decree, and column 9, showing the amount of costs, were not filled up and certain copies of decrees were not filed. The Court gave time till the 5th February 1917 to supply the deficiencies, but no action was taken to remedy the defects and the application was rejected on the 6th February 1917. A second application was made on the 27th January 1920, but was struck off on the application of the decree-holder on the 6th April 1920, and the judgment-debtor on that date objected that the application was times barred since the orders passed with regard to the first application had not been carried out. A third application was made on the 9th April 1920, and the present appellant then objected that it was time barred inasmuch as there had been no proper step-in aid of execution on the 29th January 1917, the decree-holder having failed to remedy the defects in the application, and, therefore, the application was not in accordance with law within the meaning of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order XXI, and Article 182. Clause 5(a) of the Limitation Act.

The learned Vakil for the appellant relies on the cases of Salimullah Bahadur v. Sainaddi Sarkar 22 Ind. Cas. 337:18 C.L.J. 538 and Gopal Sah v. Janki Koer 23 C. 217 : 12 Ind. Dec. 145. It is clear from these decisions that the application made on the 29th January 1917 cannot be taken to have been a step-in-aid of execution, for the application was not in accordance with law as required by Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The present application was, therefore, time barred and the appeal must succeed. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. The appeal is allowed with costs and the order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside. The proceedings in execution are now time-barred.