Skip to content


The Municipal Council by Its Commissioner Vs. Sundaresan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad429; (1939)1MLJ87
AppellantThe Municipal Council by Its Commissioner
RespondentSundaresan
Excerpt:
- .....of 1929 had been 'lost', but there was no pretence that the execution petition of 1932 was a revival or continuation of it. in fact, the execution petition of 1932 was not a revival or continuation of the execution petition of 1929 : it was a new petition altogether. now i do not think that municipal councils should be encouraged to indulge in such dilatoriness and neglect as has been shown by the plaintiff council in this case. the decree was passed in 1922 and it ought to have been executed long ago. the first execution: petition was in 1924 and there were properties brought to sale but for some reason, the sale was not held. the next petition was filed in december, 1927 and that was returned and finally dismissed as 'not pressed'. then came the petition of august, 1929, and.....
Judgment:

Burn, J.

1. The lower Courts are in my opinion right. It is not, in my judgment, permissible for a decree-holder to extend the period of limitation by simply failing to re-present an execution petition returned for rectification. The proper way to deal with such a petition as that is to treat it as not having come into existence at all.

2. In this case the Municipal Council having presented an execution petition oil 15th August, 1929, which was returned for some defect, waited till 14th August, 1932 and, then filed a new execution petition. Allegation was made that the Execution Petition of 1929 had been 'lost', but there was no pretence that the Execution Petition of 1932 was a revival or continuation of it. In fact, the Execution Petition of 1932 was not a revival or continuation of the Execution Petition of 1929 : it was a new petition altogether. Now I do not think that Municipal Councils should be encouraged to indulge in such dilatoriness and neglect as has been shown by the plaintiff Council in this case. The decree was passed in 1922 and it ought to have been executed long ago. The first execution: petition was in 1924 and there were properties brought to sale but for some reason, the sale was not held. The next petition was filed in December, 1927 and that was returned and finally dismissed as 'not pressed'. Then came the petition of August, 1929, and after that, full three years were allowed to pass, with nothing done. In such circumstances the learned District Munsiff would, in my opinion, have been liable to grave censure if he had used any discretion, he possessed in favour of the Council.

3. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no costs as the respondent does not appear.


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