Skip to content


Phool Chand Babulal and ors. Vs. Harish Chander - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 507/66
Judge
Reported in1969WLN69a
AppellantPhool Chand Babulal and ors.
RespondentHarish Chander
Dispositionapplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....executing court can hold inquiry.;assurance given cannot extend the period under act. 125 of the limitation act. the executing court cannot hold an inquiry about the alleged adjustment of september 1965 on the application of the judgment-debtor moved beyond the period of 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 clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen..........another application in which he alleged that a compromise had taken place between him and the decree-holder sometime in september 1965 under which the decree holder had agreed to accept rs. 2100/- in full satisfuction and he executed a promissory note for the amount so that the decree was satisfied. the decree-holder denied this allegation and contended that the application of the judgment-debtor was under order 21 rule 2 cpc and was barred by limitation under article 125, the limitation under which is only 30 days. this contention was repelled by the civil judge by saying that it was alleged by the judgment-debtor that on 2-4-66 the legal representative of kesrimal decree holder had assured him that they would honour the agreement arrived at between him and their deceased.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The decree was passed on 24-5-62 and the execution application was filed on 22-5-63. On 17-5-65 and 2-8-65 on the application of the Judgment debtor time was granted to him to pay the decretal amount. This time expired on 18-9-65. Thereafter Kesrimal died on 9-10-65 the Judgment debtor filed an application that Keshrimal having died the execution application may be dismissed. On 20-4-66 he moved another application in which he alleged that a compromise had taken place between him and the decree-holder sometime in September 1965 under which the decree holder had agreed to accept Rs. 2100/- in full satisfuction and he executed a promissory note for the amount so that the decree was satisfied. The decree-holder denied this allegation and contended that the application of the Judgment-debtor was under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC and was barred by limitation under Article 125, the limitation under which is only 30 days. This contention was repelled by the Civil Judge by saying that it was alleged by the Judgment-debtor that on 2-4-66 the legal representative of Kesrimal decree holder had assured him that they would honour the agreement arrived at between him and their deceased predecessor. Even if any such assurance was given it cannot extend the period under Article 125 of the Limitation Act. The executing Court cannot hold an inquiry about the alleged adjustment of September 1955 on the application of the Judgment debtor moved beyond the period of limitation.

2. I accordingly allow the revision application with costs, set aside the order of the executing court and direct it to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with law.


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