https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278782 Execution time pursued by decree-holders was held capable of exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, even though the execution proceedings later failed after an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objection did not change the character of the proceeding for limitation purposes, so the period spent in that litigation saved the rectification suit from being time-barred under Article 96. The court also found that a mistake had entered the petition of adjustment filed in execution, and the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to rectification. The decree for rectification was restored. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:38:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278782 Execution time pursued by decree-holders was held capable of exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, even though the execution proceedings later failed after an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The objection did not change the character of the proceeding for limitation purposes, so the period spent in that litigation saved the rectification suit from being time-barred under Article 96. The court also found that a mistake had entered the petition of adjustment filed in execution, and the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to rectification. The decree for rectification was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Mar 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278782