https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459684 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the application for execution was time-barred under Section 48 of the Civil P.C. The appellant's argument that the application was a continuation of previous proceedings was rejected, as the transfer application was not deemed an execution application, and the properties involved were distinct. The court emphasized that the limitation period was governed by the law in force at the time of the application, upholding the limitation bar and awarding costs, including fees on a higher scale, to the respondents. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459684 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the application for execution was time-barred under Section 48 of the Civil P.C. The appellant's argument that the application was a continuation of previous proceedings was rejected, as the transfer application was not deemed an execution application, and the properties involved were distinct. The court emphasized that the limitation period was governed by the law in force at the time of the application, upholding the limitation bar and awarding costs, including fees on a higher scale, to the respondents. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Jul 1925 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459684