Skip to content


Bohra Khetpal Vs. Kuar Tikam Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.172
AppellantBohra Khetpal
RespondentKuar Tikam Singh
Excerpt:
execution - application for execution of a decree not in continuation of an application for transfer of the decree--limitation--civil procedure code (act v of 1908) section 48. - .....of december 1896. various infructuous applications were made for execution of the decree, and the decree-holder on the 15th of december 1908 applied for the transfer of the decree from the court at agra to that at aligarh. the application was granted on the 24th of february 1909. he then on the 23rd of march 1909, applied to the court at aligarh for execution. the court came to the conclusion that the application dated the 23rd of march 1909 was barred by the 12 years' rule of limitation. the decree-holder has preferred an appeal to this court and his learned vakil argues that the application in question is an application in continuation of the application for transfer dated the 15th of december 1908 and is thus not barred by limitation. in support of this contention, reliance is placed.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the decree-holder obtained a simple money-decree against the judgment-debtor on the 19th of December 1896. Various infructuous applications were made for execution of the decree, and the decree-holder on the 15th of December 1908 applied for the transfer of the decree from the Court at Agra to that at Aligarh. The application was granted on the 24th of February 1909. He then on the 23rd of March 1909, applied to the Court at Aligarh for execution. The Court came to the conclusion that the application dated the 23rd of March 1909 was barred by the 12 years' rule of limitation. The decree-holder has preferred an appeal to this Court and his learned Vakil argues that the application in question is an application in continuation of the application for transfer dated the 15th of December 1908 and is thus not barred by limitation. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon Ram Sahai v. Nanni A.W.N. (1886) 137. It lays down in substance that an application for transfer is tantamount to an application for execution. The learned Vakil for the judgment-debtor relies upon Sundar Singh v. Doru Shankar 20 A. 78 in which a Bench of this Court was of opinion that an application for transfer was not an application for execution of a decree though they rejected the application for revision on another ground. We are of opinion that an application for execution can in no sense of the words be regarded as an application in continuation of an application for transfer of a decree from one Court to another. In order that an application be a continuation of another application, it is necessary that the two applications must be of the same nature and the application for transfer being an application of an entirely different nature from that for execution of a decree, we agree with the view taken by the learned Judges in Sunder Singh v. Doru Shankar 20 A. 78 in preference to that expressed in Ram Sahai v. Nanni A.W.N. (1886) 137. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs, which in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.


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