Skip to content


Raje Bommaraju Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu Minor by Guardian W.A. Varadachariar Vs. Subramanya Nayani Varu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad728(1); 31Ind.Cas.87
AppellantRaje Bommaraju Venkata Perumal Raju Bahadur Varu Minor by Guardian W.A. Varadachariar
RespondentSubramanya Nayani Varu and ors.
Cases Referred and Venkatamma v. Manikam Nayani Varu
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rules 10, 64 - execution--order for attachment--application for execution, not disposed of--subsequent application for sale of property, whether barred. - 1. an order for attachment was made on the execution application in 1897. that application has not been disposed of in any way. the present one was to sell the attached property. there can be no bar of limitation in such cases, as the decree -holder only asks that effect be given to the application which is still pending before the court. his present prayer should not be regarded as a new application. we are unable to hold that the decree-holder has either abandoned his application or that he has disabled himself by laches from seeking to enforce his remedies under the pending application. following subba charia v. muthuveeram pillai 14 ind. cas. 264 and venkatamma v. manikam nayani varu 26 ind. cas. 244, we hold that the application is in time and dismiss this appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. An order for attachment was made on the execution application in 1897. That application has not been disposed of in any way. The present one was to sell the attached property. There can be no bar of limitation in such cases, as the decree -holder only asks that effect be given to the application which is still pending before the Court. His present prayer should not be regarded as a new application. We are unable to hold that the decree-holder has either abandoned his application or that he has disabled himself by laches from seeking to enforce his remedies under the pending application. Following Subba Charia v. Muthuveeram Pillai 14 Ind. Cas. 264 and Venkatamma v. Manikam Nayani Varu 26 Ind. Cas. 244, we hold that the application is in time and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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