Skip to content


Panchanan Chowdhury Vs. Nrisingha Prosad Roy and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.264
AppellantPanchanan Chowdhury
RespondentNrisingha Prosad Roy and anr.
Excerpt:
limitation act (xv of 1877), schedule ii, article 179(4) - application for confirmation of sale--decree-holder, auction-purchaser--step-in-aid of execution. - .....he as auction-purchaser applied to have the sale confirmed, and that was accordingly done. the present application for execution was made in may 1891. it is objected that the present application is barred. the judgment-creditor contends that in considering the period of limitation, the application for the confirmation of sale, dated the 22nd october 1888, should be taken into account; aid if that regarded as a step-in-aid of execution under the provisions of article 179 of schedule ii the present application could not be barred.2. that argument, however, is not valid; because that application, we find, was made on their behalf as auction-purchasers to have the sale confirmed in their favour; and we have been referred to no authority in support of the proposition that such an.....
Judgment:

1. The question involved in this case is one of limitation. The respondent decree-holder obtained the decree on the 12th May 1888. In execution of that decree, he set up certain properties of the judgment-debtor to sale and purchased the same himself. On the 22nd October 1888, he as auction-purchaser applied to have the sale confirmed, and that was accordingly done. The present application for execution was made in May 1891. It is objected that the present application is barred. The judgment-creditor contends that in considering the period of limitation, the application for the confirmation of sale, dated the 22nd October 1888, should be taken into account; aid if that regarded as a step-in-aid of execution under the provisions of Article 179 of Schedule II the present application could not be barred.

2. That argument, however, is not valid; because that application, we find, was made on their behalf as auction-purchasers to have the sale confirmed in their favour; and we have been referred to no authority in support of the proposition that such an application can be referred as a step-in-aid of execution, such as would secure to the benefit of the present, applicant.

3. We accordingly set aside the order of the lower Court and dismiss the application with costs, one gold mohur.


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