Parry and Co. by their Agent C.H. Cardozo vs Vadivelu Pillay

We think the view of the lower Courts is right on the question of limitation. In 1900, the decree-holder made an application in which he asked

for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor''s property. The order passed on the application was ""immovables attached. Strike off petition, but

the attachment will continue."" Then, on a subsequent application made for sale of the property attached notice was issued, but the batta not being

paid, the second application was struck off in 1901. The present application is made in 1909. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the

application of 1900 is still pending. But we cannot accept that contention. What was apparently intended was that the prayer for attachment should

be granted and, in other respects, the application should be refused. If that be the correct meaning of the order in question, as we think it is, there is

no force in the contention that the present application is in continuance of the proceedings of 1900, because, in fact, those proceedings had come

to an end. In this view of the facts, the rulings reported in Cholawadi Kotiah v. Polori Alamelamah 31 M.P 71 : 3 M.L.T. 328 : 18 M.L.J. 46;

Madhabmoni Dasi v. Pamila Lambert 37 C.P 796 : 6 Ind. Cas. 537 and Kamaruddin Ahmed v. Jawahir Lal 27 A.P 334 : 1 C.L.J. 381 : 7 Bom.

L.R. 433 : 15 M.L.J. 258 : 9 C.W.N. 601 : 2 A.L.J. 397 have no application.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.