S.N. Subramanian Chettiar vs Ramanadhan Chettiar

This appeal arises out of an application filed by the plaintiff decree-holder in O.S. No. 31 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate

Judge of Cuddalore for bringing on record one Ramaswami Chatty as the legal representative of the deceased defendant 4 and also for

transmission of the decree to the Subordinate Court, Devakotah for execution u/s 39, Civil P.C. As required under Rule 138, Clause (1) of the

Civil Rules of Practice, the application stated the particulars set out in Clause (a) to (i), Order 21, Rule 11, Civil P.C. and the circumstances relied

on by the petitioner justifying the transmission of the decree; and notice of this application was sent under Rule 138 Clause (3) to the defendants.

Defendant 1, the appellant before us, did not offer any objection to the legal representative being brought on record. He did not object to the

transfer of the decree also, but he contended that the decree was not executable for various reasons and that these objections should be decided

before the transfer was ordered. The learned Judge brought the legal representative on the record and ordered the transfer of the decree to the

Devakottah Sub-Court as prayed for, holding that the objections which defendant 1 has raised as to the executability may, if so advised, be

advanced in the executing Court.

In this appeal, defendant 1 argues that the decree is in executable and is barred by limitation and that the Subordinate Judge was bound in law to

dispose of these objections before ordering the transfer. The respondent contends that the proper Court to deal with these objections is the

executing Court and that the order of the Subordinate Judge is only a ministerial order against which no appeal lies. He relies mainly on the decision

in Chatterput Singh v. Sait Sumari Mal [1916] 43 Cal. 903, which is referred to with approval in AIR 1927 73 (Privy Council) .

The question whether the objections as regards the executability of the decree should be decided by the Court which transfers the decree or the

Court to which it is transferred for execution, was considered and decided by this Court in Rajitagiripathy v. Bhavani Shankaran AIR 1924 Mad.

673, in favour of the view advanced on behalf of the appellant. In that case the learned Judges accepted the argument that if the debtor had an

opportunity of appearing and pleading that the application was barred by limitation and failed to do so, Section 11, Ex. 4, Civil P C, will be

applicable and that the question would be res judicata because it was one which might and ought to have been put forward to show that the decree

was not one that was executable. After referring to the leading cases Mungal Pershad Dichit v. Grija ''Kant Lahiri [1882] 8 Cal. 51 and Rajah of

Ramnad v. Velusami Thevar AIR 1921 P.C. 23. as regards the application of the principle of constructive res judicata in execution proceedings,

the learned Judges stated their conclusion thus;

It would appear from this, that even in an application for transfer of a decree it is open to the judgment-debtor to plead limitation, and in fact he

ought to do so. If the decree is barred by limitation the transfer of it to another Court is a more infructuous proceeding which ought not to be taken

and, therefore, if a valid plea of limitation is available it should be urged in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

According to this decision it is clear that the Cuddalore Court in this case should have dealt with the objections which the appellant urged as

regards the executability of the decree; and that it is the proper Court to deal with such objections. This case was followed in the decision reported

in Muthuveeraswami Nayudu and Others Vs. V.T.A.L. Annamalai Chettiar and Others, , to which one of us was a party. The identical question

again came up for consideration very recently in Arunachalam Pillai v. Shunmugam Pillai [1928] M. W.N. 152 and the learned Judges followed the

two earlier decisions of this Court we have referred to. In this last case, the two Calcutta cases relied on by the respondent were referred to and

distinguished. In our opinion, the decision in Chutter Putt Singh v. Sait Sumari Mul approved by the Privy Council in Banku Behari Chatterji v.

Narain Das Butt is inapplicable in the circumstances of the present case. In that case the question was whether the Master on the original side of

the High Court of Calcutta who had no authority to decide limitation could receive a decree by ordinary transmission in a case where he need not

have been issued notice and no one appeared for the judgment-debtor. We have here to consider whether a Court which had authority to decide

questions of limitation and which was bound to issue notice and heard the parties can decline to go into the question of limitation and other grounds

rendering the decree inexecutable. We are inclined to think that it cannot decline both on principle and on the authority of the previous decisions of

this Court. The observations of the Privy Council in Banku Behari Chatterji v. Narain Das Dutt should be understood with reference to the special

practice prevailing in the Calcutta Courts. If the judgment-debtor after receiving notice to show cause why the decree should not be transferred to

another Court for execution does not raise all his objections to execution, such as limitation, discharge etc., it will not be open to him to raise such

pleas in a later execution petition on the ground of constructive res judicata.

Further, it appears to us that the application u/s 39 is an application governed by Section 3(1), Lim. Act, and the Court must go into the

question of limitation. It also appears to us that the order having been passed by the Subordinate Judge after the issue of notice to the judgment-

debtor and hearing his objections, cannot be considered to be a ministerial order.

We must therefore, set aside the order and remand the petition to the lower Court for disposal according to law. We may note that apart from

the plea that the decree is not executable, no other objection to the transmission of the decree has been urged before us by the appellant. The

appellant will get his costs here and in the Court below.