Skip to content


Umia Shankar Vs. Firm Jani Khusalji Jethji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Miss. Execution Second Appeal No. 27 of 1966
Judge
Reported in1969WLN69
AppellantUmia Shankar
RespondentFirm Jani Khusalji Jethji
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredMishrilal v. Budhaj
Excerpt:
limitation act (old) - articles 182 and 182(7) and limitation act (new) article 137--execution application for balance of decretal amount filed beyond 3 years--whether barred.;where the execution application was filed on 1-4-1964, the right to apply for execution of the belance of the decreta amount accrued before 14-7-60. the present execution application is therefore barred by limitation. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under..........payable in instalment of rs. 75/- per month. the first instalment fell due on 12-5-56. there was a default clause entitling the decree-holder to recover the balance of the amount in lump-sum if there was default before 14-7-60 and on 14-7-60 the decree-holder filed an execution application for recovering the balance due taking advantage of the default clause. nothing was realised from the judgment-debtor in this execution application. the present execution application was filed on 1-4-64. the judgment-debtor filed an objection that it was barred by limitation. his objection was dismissed by both the courts below.the present execution application has been filed for the recovery of the balance of amount and not for instalments falling due within 3 years of the date of the execution.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narain, J.

1. This is a judgment-debtor's execution second appeal against an order of the appllate court holding that the execution appelication was within limitation.

2. An instalment decree was passed in this case on 24-2-56. The decretal amount was payable in instalment of Rs. 75/- per month. The first instalment fell due on 12-5-56. There was a default Clause entitling the decree-holder to recover the balance of the amount in lump-sum if there was default before 14-7-60 and on 14-7-60 the decree-holder filed an execution application for recovering the balance due taking advantage of the default clause. Nothing was realised from the judgment-debtor in this execution application. The present execution application was filed on 1-4-64. The judgment-debtor filed an objection that it was barred by limitation. His objection was dismissed by both the courts below.

The present execution application has been filed for the recovery of the balance of amount and not for instalments falling due within 3 years of the date of the execution application. This execution application is evidently based on the default clause. It was held in Mishrilal v. Budhaj (1) that an execution application for the recovery of a particuler instalment was governed by Article 182(7) of the old Limitation Act and an application for recovering the balance due under the default Clause was governed by Article 181 of the old limitation Act. The corresponding article under the new Limitation Act is Article 137. The period of limitation off years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The right to apply for execution of the balance of the decretal amount accused before 14-7-60. The present execution application is therefore barred by limitation.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, I allow the parties to bear their own costs.


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