KAMALAMMAL Vs. RAJARATHNA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Vellore confirming the order of the District Munsiff of Vellore. This arises out of execution proceedings and the question for determination is whether the application made for execution is barred by limitation. The material facts are these. A decree was passed on 21 July, 1932, by the Court of the District Munsiff of Ranipet. In February, 1935, the village to which the parties belong was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ranipet Court to that of Vellore Court. On 21st July, 1935, the last day of limitation, an execution petition for transmission of the decree was filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ranipet. The petition was returned with an order of Court on 25 July, 1935, that the decree-holder should produce a copy of the decree and seven days time was granted for the same. The petition was re-presented on 31 July, 1935, with an endorsement " not pressed." The petition, when it was re-presented, was not accompanied by a copy of the decree. On 1 August, 1935, the petition was dismissed as " not pressed." A similar application was filed on 21 July, 1938, and it was also similarly dismissed on the 5 August, 1938. Another application for transmission to Vellore Court was filed on 23 June, 1941, and an order of transmission was passed on 26 June, 1941. The decree was received in Vellore Court on 2nd July, 1941 and it was returned on 6 January, 1942, as no steps were taken. The application out of which this revision arises, E.A. No. 64 of 1944, was filed in the Court of the Ranipet District Munsiff on 10 June, 1944, and transmission was ordered on 13 June, 1944, and the present execution petition was filed on 1 July, 1944. This petition is resisted on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

(2.) The grounds of objection are (1) the petition presented on 21 July, 1935, to the District Munsiff's Court, Ranipet, is not " in accordance with law " within the meaning of that expression in Art. 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, (2) the order passed on 1 August, 1935, dismissing the petition as " not pressed " is not a final order within the meaning of these words in Art. 182(5).

(3.) I will deal with the second ground first, viz, whether the order dismissing the petition as " not pressed " is a final order. It is now well-settled that the words " final order " imply that the proceeding has terminated so far as the Court passing it is concerned. Vide R.T. Kesavaloov. Official Receiver, West Tanjore , and Chidambara Nadar V/s. Ramanadar . The true test as laid down in Syed Gulam Khader Sahib V/s. Viswanatha Aiyar is whether the order puts an end to the application in respect of which it is made so far as the Court passing it is concerned. Applying the above test, I should say that the orders of the Court of the Ranipet District Munsiff passed on 1 August, 1935, and 5 August, 1938, are final orders. The fact that the petition is dismissed as not pressed does not make any difference. Vide Muthu Venkatasubba Reddiar V/s. Thangavel Chetti .