Skip to content


Gunga Pershad Bhoomick Vs. Debi Sundari Dabea - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR11Cal227
AppellantGunga Pershad Bhoomick
RespondentDebi Sundari Dabea
Excerpt:
execution - step in aid of execution--legal representative applying for execution without her name being on the record. - .....of these applications was made on the 14th of june 1880; the second on the 22nd of june 1881; and the third on the 1st of april 1882.2. the application of the 14th of june 1880, and that of the 22nd of june 1881, were merely to obtain payment of money in deposit in the treasury in account with the civil courts, such money being payable to the person of whom the applicant was the legal representative. we think it impossible to say that either of these applications was a step in aid of the execution of the decree.3. the next application was that of the 1st of april 1882. this was an application to get back the copy of the decree for purposes of execution, made by a lady who had not then been substituted for the decree-holder on the record. we think that this application also cannot be.....
Judgment:

Field, J. (Bevebley, J., concurring)

1. The former execution case was struck off on the 31st of January 1880. We have then to consider the effect of three applications. The first of these applications was made on the 14th of June 1880; the second on the 22nd of June 1881; and the third on the 1st of April 1882.

2. The application of the 14th of June 1880, and that of the 22nd of June 1881, were merely to obtain payment of money in deposit in the Treasury in account with the Civil Courts, such money being payable to the person of whom the applicant was the legal representative. We think it impossible to say that either of these applications was a step in aid of the execution of the decree.

3. The next application was that of the 1st of April 1882. This was an application to get back the copy of the decree for purposes of execution, made by a lady who had not then been substituted for the decree-holder on the record. We think that this application also cannot be considered as a step in aid of the execution of the decree.

4. This being so, between the 31st of January 1880 and the 5th of January 1884, there was no step taken in aid of the execution of the decree; and we agree with the Munsif in thinking that the present application is barred by limitation.

5. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Judge, and restore that of the Munsif with costs.


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