- (1.) THIS appeal arises. out of certain execution proceedings. On 25-3-1951, Gobind Sarup obtained a decree against Gopal Chand and Jaswant Kumar for a sum of Rs. 1,414/- with costs and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Execution was taken out and during execution proceedings the parties entered into a compromise in 14-5-1949. The judgment-debtors agreed to pay the decretal amount by instalments of Rs. 30/- per month. It seems that the judgment-debtors did not pay up the stipulated amount and an application for execution was again taken out by the decree-holder on 31-7-1951. Gopal Chand judgment-debtor preferred objections under Sections 47 and 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the second time the parties entered into a compromise on 24-11-1951 in the executing Court, the result of which was that the amount of instalments payable was raised from Rs. 30/- to 40/- per month. The last execution application was taken up on 13-11-1954 and this was in respect of future interest. The decree-holder claimed that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,128-10-0 in respect of future interest and was entitled to execute the decree as the same had not been paid. The judgment-debtor raised various objections on which the following issues were framed : 1. Is the execution application barred by time? 2. Is the decree-holder not entitled to claim interest? 3. Is the salary of the judgment-debtor exempt from attachment as alleged? 4. What is the effect of the statement dated 24-11-1951 made in the previous execution application? 5. What amount is due to the decree-holder? 6. Is the present execution application irregular and defective? 7. Is the decree-holder estopped from claiming interests? 8. Relief.
(2.) THE executing Court dismissed the application as having been fully satisfied. But in appeal the learned District Judge set aside the order of the executing Court and held that the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree. The judgment-debtor is dissatisfied with the order of the learned District Judge and has comet to this Court in execution second appeal.
(3.) THE first and the important question that has been raised by Shri Hans Raj sodhi on behalf of the appellant relates to issue No. 1. His argument is mat the execution application ought to have been held to be barred by time, ft is contended by him as was contended in the Courts below that the execution application was made after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of the decree and, therefore, it was barred under the provisions of Section 48 of the code of Civil Procedure. The question to be seen is whether the compromise which was effected on 24-111951 affected the bar created by Section 48. It would be useful to refer to the compromise which took place on 24-11-1951. Gopal Chand judgment-debtor made a statement to the following effect; "i have compromised with the decree-holder in these terms. The balance of the decree will be paid in instalments of Rs. 40/- per month. In case of default in paying two instalments the decree-holder will be entitled to recover the balance by attachment of my pay. I give up the objection petition. I have already paid Rs. 385-2-0 which may be given credit for. ";