Skip to content


Hokum Chand Aswal Vs. Gyanender Chunder Lahiri, Minor, by His Guardian Abhoy Chunder Bagchi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR14Cal570
AppellantHokum Chand Aswal
RespondentGyanender Chunder Lahiri, Minor, by His Guardian Abhoy Chunder Bagchi
Excerpt:
bengal act viii of 1869, section 58 - execution of decree--suit for rent not brought under bengal act viii of 1869--decree of court of foreign state--civil procedure code, 1882, section 434. - .....for arrears of rent. section 434 of the procedure code is the section which gives the courts in british india authority to execute such decrees. that section says: 'the governor-general in council may, from time to time, by notification in the gazette of india, declare that the decrees of any courts situate in the territories of any native prince or state in alliance with her majesty, and not established by the authority of the governor-general in council, may be executed in british india as if they had been made by the courts of british india.' therefore the decree must be executed as if it had been made by a court in british india. the law of limitation which would be applicable to such execution proceedings would be the law which would be applicable to the decree if it had been.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application to execute a decree under a certificate granted by a Civil Court in Cooch Behar with reference to a decree for arrears of rent. Section 434 of the Procedure Code is the section which gives the Courts in British India authority to execute such decrees. That section says: 'The Governor-General in Council may, from time to time, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that the decrees of any Courts situate in the territories of any Native Prince or State in alliance with Her Majesty, and not established by the authority of the Governor-General in Council, may be executed in British India as if they had been made by the Courts of British India.' Therefore the decree must be executed as if it had been made by a Court in British India. The law of limitation which would be applicable to such execution proceedings would be the law which would be applicable to the decree if it had been passed in a Court in British India. The decree having been passed in a suit for arrears of rent, and the amount being under Rs. 500, we think that the lower Court was right in holding that the law of limitation applicable in this case is the law contained in Section 58 of the Rent Act. That section says : 'No process of execution of any description whatsoever shall be issued on a judgment in any suit for any of the causes of action mentioned in Sections 27, 28, 29 or 30 of this Act, after the lapse of three years from the date of such judgment.' It was contended before us that Section 58, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, only applies to suits instituted under Act VIII of 1869. The language of the section does not support this contention. The section says it shall apply to any 'judgment in any suit for any of the causes of action mentioned in Section 27,28, 29 and 30 of the Act.' That is not tantamount to saying that the suit itself must be under Act VIII of 1869. If it is a suit on any of the causes of action mentioned in the sections of the Act enumerated, it would come within the purview of Section 58; and there is no doubt that the present suit comes within the causes of action enumerated in the section, the judgment of the lower Court is therefore correct.

2. We dismiss this appeal with costs and assess the hearing fee at Rs.32.


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