TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privy Council: Execution Application Barred by Limitation</h1> <h3>Batuk Nath Versus Musammat Munni Dei</h3> The Privy Council held that the application for execution was barred by limitation as per Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The dismissal of ... - Issues:- Interpretation of limitation period for execution of decree- Effect of dismissal of appeal to His Majesty in Council on limitation period- Application of Indian Limitation Act, 1877Interpretation of Limitation Period for Execution of Decree:The case involved an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which dismissed an application for execution of a decree from 1898. The Subordinate Judge held that the period of limitation ran from the dismissal of the appeal to His Majesty in Council, and since the terms of the decree were not complied with within the extended time, the suit stood dismissed. The High Court upheld this reasoning without considering the question of limitation.Effect of Dismissal of Appeal to His Majesty in Council on Limitation Period:The dismissal of the appeal to His Majesty in Council for non-prosecution was under Rule 5 of the Order in Council of 1853, which resulted in the appeal being dismissed without further order. The application for execution was made after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The absence of a final order from His Majesty in Council dismissing the appeal did not affect the limitation period for the execution.Application of Indian Limitation Act, 1877:The Privy Council held that the application for execution was barred by limitation as per Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The dismissal of the appeal to His Majesty in Council did not constitute a final decree or order, and the application should have been dismissed accordingly. The Privy Council advised that the appeal be dismissed, with costs to be borne by the appellant. The judgment focused on the strict application of the limitation period and the consequences of non-compliance, ultimately upholding the dismissal of the application on grounds of limitation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
