Limitation for execution and Government's right to execute costs both upheld where appeal abatement was formally ordered.

Limitation for execution was held to run from the date of the formal order declaring the appeal abated, because that order was treated as the operative final order for limitation purposes rather than the earlier automatic abatement on death. The Court also held that where costs are awarded to the U.P. Government in proceedings defended on behalf of a public officer, the Government acquires an enforceable right to execute the award and is a decree-holder within the Code of Civil Procedure, even if not shown as a party on the record. The execution application was therefore within time and maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for execution ran from the date of automatic abatement on the death of the defendant or from the date of the formal order declaring the appeal abated; and (ii) whether the U.P. Government, in whose favour costs were awarded, was entitled to execute the decree/order though it was not a party on the record.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for execution ran from the date of automatic abatement on the death of the defendant or from the date of the formal order declaring the appeal abated.

Analysis: Under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the decisive date for execution was treated as the date of the formal judicial order declaring the appeal abated. The Court applied the view that such an order is in effect an affirmation of the decree below and is a final order for limitation purposes. The authorities relied on by the appellant regarding dismissal for want of prosecution were distinguished as not dealing with an abatement order.

Conclusion: Limitation began to run from 22 December 1939, the date of the formal abatement order, and the execution application was within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the U.P. Government, in whose favour costs were awarded, was entitled to execute the decree/order though it was not a party on the record.

Analysis: Order XXVII, Rules 6, 8 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognise the Government's undertaking of the defence of a public officer. The Court held that when costs are awarded to the Government in such circumstances, the Government acquires an enforceable right and is a decree-holder within Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even if the award were treated as an order rather than a decree, it was an order capable of execution. The Government therefore had the right to realise the costs decreed in its favour.

Conclusion: The U.P. Government was entitled to execute the decree/order for costs.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the decree-holder's right to execute the costs award was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For execution purposes, limitation runs from the formal order declaring an appeal abated, and a person in whose favour an executable award of costs is made is a decree-holder entitled to execute it even if not named as a party to the suit.

---