Decided on July 07,1950

Behari Lal Atma Ram And Anr. Appellant
L. Kishan Chand Harnam Dass And Ors. Respondents


Teja Singh, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly abated. A decree for Rs. 4,400 with costs was passed in favour of the decree holder by a civil Ct. in the erstwhile Kapurthala State on 23 -10 -2005. On 21 -11 -2005 the judgment -debtor applied to the executing Ct. for granting instalments for payment of the decree. The appln. was opposed by the decree -holder on the ground that according to the law prevalent in Patiala, which was to be considered the law for thy whole Union according to Section 3 of the Patiala & East Punjab States Union (General Provisions Administration) Ordinance (No. 16 of 2005) no executing Ct. could go beyond the decree, that it must execute the decree as it stands & that it had no power to grant instalments. The executing Ct. accepted the decree -holder's objection & dismissed the petn. the judgment -debtor hew now appealed to this Ct.
(2.) ORDINANCE No. 16 of 2005 was promulgated on 4 -11 -2005 & it was, therefore, in force at the time the judgment -debtor made the petn. Section 3 of the said Ordinance reads as follows: As from the appointed day all laws, rules, regulations, byelaws...& all other provisions having the force of law in Patiala State on the said data shall apply mutatis mutandis to the territories of the Union & all laws in force in the other Covenanting States immediately before that date shall cease to have effect: Provided that all suits, appeals, revisions, applns., reviews, executions & other proceedings, or any of them whether civil or criminal or revenue pending in the Cts. & before authorities of any Covenanting States shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, be disposed of in accordance with the laws governing such proceedings in force in any such Covenanting State Immediately before the appointed date. Both counsel are agreed that the law prevalent in Kapurthala State was that when a money decree was passed by a Ct. the executing Ct. could grant instalments for payment of the decretal amount. The learned Counsel for the Appellant counsel argues before me that since an execution appln. is a continuation of the suit & according to the law prevalent in Kapurthala State at the time the suit was instituted an executing Ct. could grant instalments, the same law should be applied in the present case. In the first place I do not think that the proposition that an execution appln. is a continuation of the suit for all purposes is well founded. The counsel has not been able to cite a single authority in support of this proposition & as at present advised my impression is that the suit ends with the decree & a different process starts when an execution appln. is instituted. Secondly, the proviso to the Ordinance makes definite mention of an execution appln. along with suit & other proceedings & lays down that the law prevalent in the Covenanting States relating to each "proceeding" before the appointed date was to be applied so far as that proceeding is concerned provided that the proceeding was instituted before the appointed date. This means, that even if the wide proposition that an execution appln. is a continuation of the suit be accepted, in view of the clear words of the proviso the law that governed the execution appln. in the Kapurthala State could be applied provided the execution appln. was instituted before the formation of the Union. In the present case, as I have already pointed out, the execution appln. was made not only long after the formation of the Union but after Ordinance No. 16 of 2005 had come into force, & accordingly the law of the Patiala State must be applied to the appln & since it is not denied that according to that law the executing Ct. had no power to modify the decree by granting instalments the patn. was not maintainable.
(3.) THE result is that the appeal fails & is dismissed with costs.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.