Skip to content


Bhagelu Salu and anr. Vs. Ram Autar Shukul - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR39All193
AppellantBhagelu Salu and anr.
RespondentRam Autar Shukul
Excerpt:
execution of decree limitation - decree conditional on money being paid into court 'within thirty days of the decree becoming final'--interpretation of condition. - - the object, therefore, of the provision would be defeated if the plaintiff was obliged to bring his money into court before the time had expired within which the defendant might prefer an appeal......plaintiff did not deposit the money within thirty days, but he did deposit the money before the time had expired within which the defendant might appeal. the question, therefore, which arises for decision is this: was this money paid in within 30 days of the decree becoming 'final'? a learned judge of this court has decided in the affirmative. we think that his view is correct. there is no doubt a considerable conflict of authority and we are entitled therefore to deal with the case from the point of view we think to be correct. the whole object of the provision in the decree giving the plaintiff thirty days after the decree had become final was to obviate the plaintiff having unnecessarily to bring money into court and allow it to remain there idle during all the time that an appeal.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree conditional upon his paying into court a certain sum of money within 'thirty days of the decree becoming final.' Thirty days is the time allowed for filing appeals. But this time is extended by Section 12 of the Limitation Act, which provides that the time necessary for obtaining a copy of the judgement shall be excluded in computing the thirty days. The plaintiff did not deposit the money within thirty days, but he did deposit the money before the time had expired within which the defendant might appeal. The question, therefore, which arises for decision is this: Was this money paid in within 30 days of the decree becoming 'final'? A learned Judge of this Court has decided in the affirmative. We think that his view is correct. There is no doubt a considerable conflict of authority and we are entitled therefore to deal with the case from the point of view we think to be correct. The whole object of the provision in the decree giving the plaintiff thirty days after the decree had become final was to obviate the plaintiff having unnecessarily to bring money into court and allow it to remain there idle during all the time that an appeal against the decree would be pending. The object, therefore, of the provision would be defeated if the plaintiff was obliged to bring his money into court before the time had expired within which the defendant might prefer an appeal. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //