Skip to content


Cherukuri Suranna and ors. Vs. Pedaverri Somanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946Mad121; (1945)2MLJ402
AppellantCherukuri Suranna and ors.
RespondentPedaverri Somanna
Excerpt:
- - in calculating the period of limitation for any suit filed in, or proceedings before, a civil court for the recovery of a debt which was the subject of any proceedings under this act the time during which such proceedings were pending as well as the time taken for the obtaining of certified copies of the order of the board shall be excluded......and fourth judgment-debtors, who are two of the appellants here filed an application before the debt conciliation board and in that application they acknowledged the debt. the application was dismissed by the debt conciliation board on 9th august, 1941, and the execution petition out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was filed on 27th july, 1943- both the courts below have held that the period occupied by the proceedings before the debt conciliation board, namely from 1st november, 1939 until 9th august, 1941, should be excluded. it is contended before me by the appellants that these orders are wrong.2. section 27(1) of the madras debt conciliation act, 1936, says:in calculating the period of limitation for any suit filed in, or proceedings before, a civil court.....
Judgment:

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1935, District Munsiff's Court, Kovvur is dated the 7th April, 1938. The third and fourth judgment-debtors, who are two of the appellants here filed an application before the Debt Conciliation Board and in that application they acknowledged the debt. The application was dismissed by the Debt Conciliation Board on 9th August, 1941, and the execution petition out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was filed on 27th July, 1943- Both the Courts below have held that the period occupied by the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, namely from 1st November, 1939 until 9th August, 1941, should be excluded. It is contended before me by the appellants that these orders are wrong.

2. Section 27(1) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, says:

In calculating the period of limitation for any suit filed in, or proceedings before, a civil Court for the recovery of a debt which was the subject of any proceedings under this Act the time during which such proceedings were pending as well as the time taken for the obtaining of certified copies of the order of the board shall be excluded.

3. Undoubtedly the execution petition filed on the 27th July, 1943 was a proceeding before a Civil Court for the recovery of a debt. Both the Courts below were right in holding that the period in question should be excluded.

4. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed with costs.

5. Leave refused.


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