https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287209 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. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:18:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287209 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Jul 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287209