Skip to content


Jumai Kanjar Vs. Abdul Karim Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1908)ILR30All536
AppellantJumai Kanjar
RespondentAbdul Karim Khan
Excerpt:
execution of decree - limitation--act no. xv of 1877 (indian limitation act), schedule ii, article 179(5)--civil procedure code, saction 248--date of issuing notice. - - 244]. we accordingly hold that this appeal must fail, and we dismiss it with costs......passed an order that notice should issue to the judgment-debtor under section 248 of the code of civil procedure. the notice was actually issued on the 25th january 1904. article 179 of schedule ii of the limitation act allows three years from 'the date of issuing notice under the code of civil procedure, section 248.' if the date of issuing notice be taken to be the date on which it is actually issued, the application is within time. but if it be taken to be the date on which the court passed an order for issue of notice under section 248, the application is too late. there is a great conflict of opinion in the different high courts as to the meaning of the words quoted above. in this conflict we are bound to follow the rulings of our own court, and the learned vakil for the appellant.....
Judgment:

Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.

1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. The Courts below have held that the present application to execute is barred by limitation. The application to execute was presented on the 24th of January 1907. The last preceding application was made on the 15th of January 1904. On the 21st of January 1904, the Court passed an order that notice should issue to the judgment-debtor under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The notice was actually issued on the 25th January 1904. Article 179 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act allows three years from 'the date of issuing notice under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 248.' If the date of issuing notice be taken to be the date on which it is actually issued, the application is within time. But if it be taken to be the date on which the Court passed an order for issue of notice under Section 248, the application is too late. There is a great conflict of opinion in the different High Courts as to the meaning of the words quoted above. In this conflict we are bound to follow the rulings of our own Court, and the learned vakil for the appellant admits that those rulings are against him. [The ruling referred to were Udit Narain v. Ram Pratab Singh (Weekly Notes 1881, p. 120) and Baldeo v. Harrison Weekly Notes 1890, p. 244]. We accordingly hold that this appeal must fail, and we dismiss it with costs.


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