Skip to content


Ram NaraIn Vs. Ghanshyam Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All379
AppellantRam Narain
RespondentGhanshyam Lal
Cases ReferredNur Ali Chowdhuri v. Koni Meah
Excerpt:
execution of decree - conditional decree--smaller sum payable if payment made within a time fixed by court--decree of first court fixing time for deposit of money--decree affirmed by sigh court and by privy council--money not paid in within time fixed by first court--no extension allowed. - .....instance on 2nd june 1900 which was affirmed by the high court on 19th january 1903, and by the privy council on the 16th november 1906. the decree of the court of first instance awarded to the plaintiff the amount claimed by him with costs and future interest, but declared that if the appellant, within three months of the date of the decree, paid the principal sum claimed by the respondent, together with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum he would be exempted from further liability. the plaintiff, it appears, had claimed interest at the rate of 30 per cent, per annum, so that according to the decree of the court of first instance if the judgment-debtor paid the principal amount with interest at 12 per cant, per annum within three months from the date of the.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Tudball, JJ.

1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of proceedings relating to the execution of a decree passed by the court of first instance on 2nd June 1900 which was affirmed by the High Court on 19th January 1903, and by the Privy Council on the 16th November 1906. The decree of the court of first instance awarded to the plaintiff the amount claimed by him with costs and future interest, but declared that if the appellant, within three months of the date of the decree, paid the principal sum claimed by the respondent, together with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum he would be exempted from further liability. The plaintiff, it appears, had claimed interest at the rate of 30 per cent, per annum, so that according to the decree of the court of first instance if the judgment-debtor paid the principal amount with interest at 12 per cant, per annum within three months from the date of the decree of that court, i.e., on or before the 2nd September 1900, he would be exempted from further liability under the decree, and would not have to pay interest at the higher rate. He did not make any payment and he now contends that he can pay the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent, per annun within three months from the date of the decree of the Privy Council. It is no doubt true that the decree of the Privy Council is the final decree in the cause of which execution should be taken out, but that decree does not extend the time for payment of the decretal amount. It affirms the decree of the High Court which again affirmed the decree of the court of first instance, including that part of the operative portion of the decree which directs payment of the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent, per annum within three months from 2nd June 1900, the date of the decree. We think the court below was right in holding that the judgment-debtor, having allowed the three montV.8 granted to him by the court of first instance to elapse, is not entitled 'to claim a further period of three months from the date of the decree of the Privy Council. The case of Nur Ali Chowdhuri v. Koni Meah (1886) I.L.R. 13 Calc. 113 relied on by the earned Counsel for the appellant depended on the terms of Section 52 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869 and does not, in our opinion, help the appellant. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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