CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Raja Kalanand Singh vs Raj Kumar Singh

Patna High Court · Decided on 27 February 1917 · Citation: AIR 1917 Patna 517 : 39 Ind. Cas. 624

HON’BLE JUDGES
Roe, J · Chapman, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 377 words

Chapman, J.—In this case a decree for rent was obtained ex parte on the 6th of January 1912. On the 2nd December 1914 an application for amendment of the decree was made and the decree was amended on the 24th of March 1915, the amendment consisting merely of a correction of the rate of rent, the amount of rent decreed remaining the same. On the 14th September 1915, an application for execution of the decree was made. The judgment-debtor objected that the application was barred by limitation, having been made more than three years from the date of the decree for rent, on the 6th January 1912, The objection has been upheld in both the Courts below. The decree-holder now appeals to this Court.

2.

At the date when the decree was amended the execution of the decree for the rent was barred by limitation. The question I have to determine is whether the amendment of the decree under which the rate of rent was altered resulted in the starting of a fresh period of limitation. I am of opinion that the Courts below were right in holding that in the circumstances of this case the amendment of the decree did not provide a fresh starting point for limitation. The decree for rent remained the same so far as the amount of rent decreed was concerned. The alteration was merely as to the rate of rent. The right to execute the decree for this amount of rent had expired before the amendment was made, I find it impossible to say that the right to execute the decree for this amount of rent was revived by reason of the amendment, not in the amount of the rent decreed, but in the ancillary part of the decree which under the rules recited the rate of rent that was decreed. I am not prepared to say that there is any general rule applicable in every case to the effect that the amendment of a decree cannot afford a fresh period of limitation. In the circumstances of the present case I am not able to say that a fresh period of limitation commenced when the amendment was made.

3.

I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Roe, J.

4.

I agree.