Skip to content


Beni Prasad Vs. Kashi Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.222
AppellantBeni Prasad
RespondentKashi Nath
Cases ReferredPattakarra Annamalai v. Rangasami Chetti
Excerpt:
.....code (act xiv of 1882), section 230 - judgment-debtor evading arrest--false objections to execution--application for execution after 12 years from the decree, whether barred. - - we have been referred to a long list of applications made for execution of the decree by the decree-holder in which the applications have been fruitless because the judgment-debtor, who is said to be a well-known resident of banda, has always contrived to be absent from his house when process has come for his arrest. looking to the above facts, we are prepared to find that the judgment-debtor has by keeping out of the way when warrants were issued for his apprehension and putting in false objections in bad faith, dishonestly evaded payment of money justly due to the plaintiff decree-holder and he now..........on behalf of a judgment-debtor. the decree against him was one passed on 7th august 1895. the present application for execution was put in on 26th august 1907, a few days beyond the limit of 12 years from the date on which the decree was passed. the judgment-debtor takes his stand upon the last clause contained in section 230, civil procedure code (1882), and contends that as the present application for execution has been presented more than 12 years after the date on which the decree was passed, the decree is no longer capable of execution. both the courts below have overruled the objection and we agree with the view which they have taken. we have been referred to a long list of applications made for execution of the decree by the decree-holder in which the applications have been.....
Judgment:

1. This is a second appeal on behalf of a judgment-debtor. The decree against him was one passed on 7th August 1895. The present application for execution was put in on 26th August 1907, a few days beyond the limit of 12 years from the date on which the decree was passed. The judgment-debtor takes his stand upon the last clause contained in Section 230, Civil Procedure Code (1882), and contends that as the present application for execution has been presented more than 12 years after the date on which the decree was passed, the decree is no longer capable of execution. Both the Courts below have overruled the objection and we agree with the view which they have taken. We have been referred to a long list of applications made for execution of the decree by the decree-holder in which the applications have been fruitless because the judgment-debtor, who is said to be a well-known resident of Banda, has always contrived to be absent from his house when process has come for his arrest. On more than one occasion, too, the appellant has taken exception to the application for execution or appealed from the orders made against him, but in each case his objection or his appeal has been dismissed, The present application for execution is within 3 years of the last previous application for execution. Looking to the above facts, we are prepared to find that the judgment-debtor has by keeping out of the way when warrants were issued for his apprehension and putting in false objections in bad faith, dishonestly evaded payment of money justly due to the plaintiff decree-holder and he now wishes to take advantage of the delay which he has dishonestly and fraudulently caused. We agree with the Madras High Court in their decision of the case of Pattakarra Annamalai v. Rangasami Chetti 6 M. 365. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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