Skip to content


Vala Subramania Pillai Vs. Sankara Subbu Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.859
AppellantVala Subramania Pillai
RespondentSankara Subbu Naidu and ors.
Excerpt:
limitation act (act xv of 1877), schedule ii, article 179(4) - step-in-aid of execution--application--starting point of limitation. - .....is to move the court to take a step-in-aid of execution it makes no difference whether the court does or does not take the step demanded.2. if then the application of the 3rd october 1905 was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution and was in accordance with law, no order of the court is required to bring article 179(4) into operation, and inasmuch as the law required the issue of a notice before execution could be had, the application presented with the bulla for the issue of the notice was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. article 179(5) has no application because this is not a case where a notice under section 218 of act xiv of 1882 was issued and that article is expressly confined to such cases.3. i reverse the order of the lower court and remand the.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. I think the Subordinate Judge has fallen into the error of holding that under Article 179(4) of the 2nd Schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877, the limitation period begins to run from the date on which some step is taken in aid of execution, and that some order of the Court is accordingly necessary to initiate that step. But it is clear from Article 179(4) itself that the period starts with the application to the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution and if the application is in accordance with law and if its purpose is to move the Court to take a step-in-aid of execution it makes no difference whether the Court does or does not take the step demanded.

2. If then the application of the 3rd October 1905 was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution and was in accordance with law, no order of the Court is required to bring Article 179(4) into operation, and inasmuch as the law required the issue of a notice before execution could be had, the application presented with the bulla for the issue of the notice was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. Article 179(5) has no application because this is not a case where a notice under Section 218 of Act XIV of 1882 was issued and that article is expressly confined to such cases.

3. I reverse the order of the lower Court and remand the execution petition for disposal according to law.

4. Costs will abide the event.


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