AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—The lower Court has dismissed the decree-holder''s execution-petition as barred by limitation. But it is pointed out by his
learned Vakil that his application is within three years from the date of his written application to the Court to receive the Railway fare and the cost
of meals for sending the judgment-debtor to the Civil Jail. Sending a debtor to Jail is certainly taking a step-in-aid of execution, as it is intended to
put pressure on the debtor to pay. Now, an application to do such a thing seems to me to be an application falling within Article 182 of the
Limitation Act and gives a fresh starting point for limitation. In a somewhat similar case a ''batta'' application to pay money into Court to get a sale
proclamation issued was considered by the High Court to be an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. See Vijiaraghavalu Naidu v.
Srinivasalu Naidu 28 M. 399.
It is argued for the respondent that there no necessity to make an application to commit an arrested debtor to Jail and that it is sufficient to pay
the subsistence money, into Court for the purpose, and that, therefore, the application to commit was a surplusage and should not be considered as
an application for the purpose of Article 182. No authority has been cited in support of this contention. The Article does not say anything about
necessary application and we cannot, therefore, introduce such a notion into it. If an application, written or oral, has been-made asking the Court
to take some step-in-aid of execution, it forms a starting point under the Article.
The execution application in the present casa was not, therefore, barred by limitation. The order pf the lower Court is set asedi and the
execution application remanded to it for fresh disposal according to law, with costs, to be disposed of by the lower Court.