Sheo Sahay vs Jamuna Prasad Singh

The only point raised in this appeal relates to limitation. It is said that the application of the decree-holder made on the 12th of May, 1923 is barred by limitation, the last execution being of 9th August, 1919, On behalf of the decree-holders it is urged that their application for execution is not barred, inasmuch as they had taken proper steps to further the execution of their decree on the 15th May, 1920. The Court below has accepted the contention of the decree-holders and has allowed the execution to proceed. The view taken by the Court below seems to be correct. On the 15th May, 1920 the decree-holders examined a certain witness in order to resist an objection filed by the judgment-debtor to the execution of the decree. That action on behalf of the decree-holders is certainly a step-in-aid of execution as contemplated by Article 182, Schedule 1, of the Limitation Act. This view is supported by various authorities: [vide Kedar Nath Dey Roy v. Lakhi Kanta Dey 21 C.W.N. 868, Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury v. Dil Mahmud Sarkar 22 C.W.N. 1027 Surajmal v. Sarjoog Prasad Singh (1917) 2 Pat. L.J. 5, and the unreported decision of this Court in Rai Bahadur Kashi Nath Singh v. Syed Kabiruddin 1923M.A. 281 ]. The latter case was cited by Mr. Noresh Chandra Sinha on behalf of the judgment-debtor appellant. The learned Chief Justice, however, held that an application need not be in writing and that a verbal application is sufficient to extend the period for execution of the decree provided it is a definite application in order to oppose an application of the judgment-debtor to set aside the execution proceedings. There can hardly be any doubt that the decree-holders are entitled to regard any step taken by them to remove the obstacle thrown by the judgment-debtor in their way to the realization of their decree as a step-in-aid of execution.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.