LAWS(RAJ)-1954-3-12

MOHD AHMED Vs. PANNA LAL

Decided On March 31, 1954
MOHD.AHMED Appellant
V/S
PANNA LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the judgment-debtor against the appellate order of the Civil Judge, Baran, holding that the decree-holder's application for execution was not time barred.

(2.) The facts are that the decree-holder obtained a decree against the judgment- debtor Abdul Lateef Khan on 20-3-1937 and the decretal amount was to be paid in yearly instalments of Rs, 507-each. On failure of any one of the instalments the whole amount was to become due and the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree for the whole amount. The decree-holder filed an application for execution on 29-1-1940 and while the proceedings for execution were pending, a compromise was made between the parties on 24-6-1941 and it was stipulated that the balance of decretal amount was to be paid in yearly instalments of Rs. 75/-. Some instalments were paid, but the balance of Rs. 178/14/- remained unpaid for which the decree-holder put in the present application on- 1-5-1950. The judgment-debtor objected that the decree was time barred as it could not be executed after twelve years from 20-3-1937, the date on which the decree was passed. The learned Munsif of Chabra repelled the objection of the judgment- debtor. The judgment-debtor went in appeal to the court of the Civil Judge, Baran, who has also held that the execution was not barred under Section 48, Civil P. C. as twelve years had not expired from 24-6-1941, when the compromise made between the parties was recorded in court. Against this order the judgment-debtor has come in appeal.

(3.) The only point that has been argued by Mr. K.C. Banghi on behalf of the appellant is that twelve years should be computed from 20-3-1931 the date on which the decree was originally passed & not from 24-6-1941. He has relied upon the rulings of the Chief Court of Oudh and Patna High Court, The Patna High Court in the case of -- 'Bishwa-nath Prasad v. Lachhmi Narain', AIR 1935 Pat 380 (A), held that "A subsequent compromise order is not an order contemplated by Section 48(1) (b)". Section 48(1)(b) is as follows: