Skip to content


Parry and Co. by their Agent C.H. Cardozo Vs. Vadivelu Pillay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.160
AppellantParry and Co. by their Agent C.H. Cardozo
RespondentVadivelu Pillay
Cases Referred and Kamaruddin Ahmed v. Jawahir Lal
Excerpt:
execution - application for execution--order directing attachment of immoveables and dismissing petition otherwise--subsequent application after lapse of three yean--limitation. - .....was issued, but the batta not being paid, the second application was struck off in 1901. the present application is made in 1909. the argument on behalf of the appellant is that the application of 1900 is still pending. but we cannot accept that contention. what was apparently intended was that the prayer for attachment should be granted and, in other respects, the application should be refused. if that be the correct meaning of the order in question, as we think it is, there is no force in the contention that the present application is in continuance of the proceedings of 1900, because, in fact, those proceedings had come to an end. in this view of the facts, the rulings reported in cholawadi kotiah v. polori alamelamah 31 m.p 71 : 3 m.l.t. 328 : 18 m.l.j. 46; madhabmoni dasi v......
Judgment:

1. We think the view of the lower Courts is right on the question of limitation. In 1900, the decree-holder made an application in which he asked for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's property. The order passed on the application was 'immoveables attached. Strike off petition, but the attachment will continue.' Then, on a subsequent application made for sale of the property attached notice was issued, but the batta not being paid, the second application was struck off in 1901. The present application is made in 1909. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the application of 1900 is still pending. But we cannot accept that contention. What was apparently intended was that the prayer for attachment should be granted and, in other respects, the application should be refused. If that be the correct meaning of the order in question, as we think it is, there is no force in the contention that the present application is in continuance of the proceedings of 1900, because, in fact, those proceedings had come to an end. In this view of the facts, the rulings reported in Cholawadi Kotiah v. Polori Alamelamah 31 M.P 71 : 3 M.L.T. 328 : 18 M.L.J. 46; Madhabmoni Dasi v. Pamila Lambert 37 C.P 796 : 6 Ind. Cas. 537 and Kamaruddin Ahmed v. Jawahir Lal 27 A.P 334 : 1 C.L.J. 381 : 7 Bom. L.R. 433 : 15 M.L.J. 258 : 9 C.W.N. 601 : 2 A.L.J. 397 have no application.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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