AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We agree with the Lower Courts in thinking this to be a case governed by the ruling in Venkatanarasimha Naidu v. Papammah ILR 19 Mad. 54
the only difference (if any) being that the judgment-debtor in this case appears never to have contested any of the applications for execution. In our
opinion, as the judgment-debtor had notice of those applications he is bound by the orders passed thereon, as the Subordinate Judge who passed
those orders must be held, whether rightly or wrongly, to have determined that the decree was executable Mungul Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant
Lahiri Chowdhry L.R. 8 IndAp 123 : ILR 8. Calc. 51.
As observed by their Lordships in a similar case, Ram Kirpa Shukul v. Mussumat Rup Kuari L.R. 11 IndAp 37: ILR 6 All. 269it would be a
reproach upon the administration of justice if the plaintiff were now to be told that her decree that has been executed for the last 20 years was not
executable.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.