Skip to content


Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Gopal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 181 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Raj256
ActsLimitation Act, 1908 - Sections 15
AppellantBishambhar Dayal
RespondentGopal
Appellant Advocate R.A. Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate R.C. Vyas and; R.K. Sharma, Advs.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredGovernment of Hyderabad v. Akram
Excerpt:
- .....the execution proceedings. 2. bishambbar dayal, legal representative of mohanlal and prabhu dayal, decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree on 18-7-1950. the decree was dated 12-7-1937. the judgment-debtor raised an objection that the execution was barred under section 47 of the civil procedure code. the decree-holder in reply said that the execution of the decree was stayed by order of the then alwar government by various notifications for a period from 7-10-1938 to 31-10-1940, and if this period was to be excluded, the application for execution could proceed. on behalf of the decree-holder, the provisions of section 15 of the limitation act were relied upon. the learned munsif was of the opinion that the time could not be excluded as the orders were not by a court.....
Judgment:

Bapna, Ag. C.J.

1. This is a revision by the decree-holder in the execution proceedings.

2. Bishambbar Dayal, legal representative of Mohanlal and Prabhu Dayal, decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree on 18-7-1950. The decree was dated 12-7-1937. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that the execution was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holder in reply said that the execution of the decree was stayed by order of the then Alwar Government by various notifications for a period from 7-10-1938 to 31-10-1940, and if this period was to be excluded, the application for execution could proceed. On behalf of the decree-holder, the provisions of Section 15 of the Limitation Act were relied upon. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the time could not be excluded as the orders were not by a Court but the executive orders of the Government, which were not contemplated in Section 15 to have the effect as claimed. The decree-holder filed an appeal but it was dismissed on 6-9-1954.

3. The decree-holder has now come in revision, as the amount involved did not permit an appeal under Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of Ameer-Un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955 SC 352 and Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad v. Akram, Ali, (S) AIR 1956 SC 60. What has been laid down in these Supreme Court cases is that the firmans of the sovereign have the effect of over-riding all other laws which were in conflict with them. In the present case while the orders are not in the nature of firmans, they are issued by the Government of His Highness the Maharaja, and purport to stay the execution of decrees in a certain area in which the judgment-debtors lived. What is now to be considered is that whether those kinds of orders by the executive Government are such as may amount to an injunction or orders under Section 15 of the Limitation Act, In our opinion the word 'injunction' being coupled with the order indicates that the injunction or the order should be one issued by a Court. The decree-holders are not entitled to the exclusion of time under Section 15 and there is no other provision by which any period during which the execution of the decree stayed by the order of the His Highness of the Alwar State, be excluded.

5. There is no force in this revision. It isaccordingly dismissed with costs.


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