AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We are unable to support the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case. The final decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1926 expressly provides
for sale of item 6 to discharge the debt due to the second defendant (appellant) under his prior mortgage. This is in pursuance of the provision in
the preliminary decree declaring that he should be at liberty to apply for.... the sale of the mortgaged property (item 6). Whether that direction is
right or wrong is not a question which can be discussed by a Court executing the decree. It is quite impossible to hold that the decree is merely
declaratory of the rights of the second defendant.
As for the point of limitation it cannot be said that the appellant''s application of 21st September, 1932, was not an application in accordance
with law. There was no obligation on him, under Order 21, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to produce a copy of the decree with the
application. Under Order 21, Rule 11(3) of the CPC the Court required him to produce a copy of the decree. He failed to do so and his
application was accordingly rejected on 10th March, 1933. His application when made was perfectly ''in accordance with law '' and the order of
10th March, 1933, was the final order on it. His present application dated 16th April, 1934, was therefore clearly in time.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The execution application must be restored to file and disposed of according to law. The contesting
respondent, the plaintiff, Will pay the appellant''s costs in both Courts.