- (1.) IS the execution, levied by Prahladrai khaitan as assignee decree-holder, of the consent decree dated March 6, 1958, in suit No. 1573 of 1953, premature ? that is the only question debated before me.
(2.) IN this proceeding in chambers, i reserved judgment, because it seemed to me to be one of difficulty, and certainly not an easy going for the assignee decree-holder. Not that it raises a new point of law. But it does present an interesting aspect of what, at law, constitutes default and payment of the money due, when payment is made by cheque. It also rasies the question of the effect of a consent decree.
(3.) TO facts first. In suit No. 1573 of 1953, one Ali Ashgar Shirazee was the plaintiff and Atlas Works Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies act, the defendant. A suit for possession of part of 53 Free School St. and other allied reliefs, it culminated, on March 6, 1958, in a consent decree for just that : vacant possession of part of "53", on certain terms, two of which call attention. One, the decree shall not be executed for 11 years from March 6, 1958, should the defendant pay the plaintiff mesne profits of Es. 800 a month by the 15th day of each succeeding month. Two, if however the defendant suffers such mesne profits to be in arrears for 3 consecutive months, the bar on execution will be lifted.;