Skip to content


N. Vittal Praphu Vs. Shrimath Auamtheshwara Temple, Manjeshwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P.No. 2373 of 1980-B
Judge
Reported inAIR1986Ker221
ActsLimitation Act, 1963 - Sections 18 - Schedule - Article 136
AppellantN. Vittal Praphu
RespondentShrimath Auamtheshwara Temple, Manjeshwar and ors.
Appellant Advocate N. Govindan Nair, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.K. Brahmanandan and; G.S. Prabhu, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - a1 contained, an application for execution which was filed more than 12 years from the date of the decree was clearly time-barred, the order of attachment under challenge is accordingly set aside......the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom, such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2).....explanation. -- for the purposes of this section, --(a) &(b)..... (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.'2. clause (c) of the explanation shows that an acknowledgment of liability does not have the effect postulated in sub-section (1) of section 18 in respect.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T. Kochu Thommen, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is against an order directing attachment of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- in execution of a decree for money. The petitioner's contention that the application for execution was time-barred was rejected on the ground that he had acknowledged his liability in Ext, Al petition which he had filed within 12 years from the date of the decree in a proceeding in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question for consideration is whether for the purpose of execution the period of limitation could be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was made, as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 18 provides:

'18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing. --(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom, such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

(2).....

Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section, --

(a) &(b).....

(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.'

2. Clause (c) of the Explanation shows that an acknowledgment of liability does not have the effect postulated in Sub-section (1) of Section 18 in respect of execution of a decree or order. The words 'an application in respect of any property or right' appearing in Sub-section (1) do not take in an application for the execution of a decree or order.

3. In the circumstances, whatever acknowledgment that Ext: A1 contained, an application for execution which was filed more than 12 years from the date of the decree was clearly time-barred, The order of attachment under challenge is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.


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