TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1946 (7) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed wrongful arrest. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the 17th December, 1936, and the operative order of the trial Court was as follows: - "The Plaintiff's suit for damages is dismissed with costs. The Defendant shall get from the Plaintiff Rs. 200 as compensatory costs, Rs. 41, the appeal unpaid costs of adjournment and the usual costs for the suit. The entire costs with the exception of Rs. 20 out of the costs of adjournment (which shall be paid to the Government Pleader) shall go to the Government. 2. There was an appeal against that order and it was dismissed on the 31st May, 1938. Then there was a revision to this Court. During the pendency of the revision the Defendant died on the 4th June, 1939. There was no substi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d v. Jawahir Lal (1914) 36 All 250 P C, that the order of the Court declaring the appeal to have abated was a ministerial order and not a judicial one. These two rulings have been considered in Murli Dhar v. Mahabir Singh 1941 AW R (HC) 255, and it was held that an order declaring an appeal to have abated is in effect an affirmation of the decree of the Court below and amounts to a final order within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act and therefore limitation begins to run against the decree-holder from the date of such order and not from the date of the decree under appeal. Moreover neither in Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei (1914) 36 All. 284 P C, nor in Abdul Majid v. Jawair Lal (1914) 36 All 250 P C, was there any question of an o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation for the application for the execution of a decree should be reckoned in the present case from the 22nd December, 1939, when the formal order for the abatement was passed by this Court. The application dated the 4th September, 1942, was thus in time. I agree with the view taken by the two Courts below. 8. The second point is whether the U. P. Government has a right to execute the decree. Order XXVII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure in suits against public officers. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 provides that Where the Government undertakes the defence of a suit against a public officer, the Government Pleader, upon being furnished with authority to appear and answer the poaint(sic), shall apply to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyer and an employee that the former undertakes the defence of the latter, but it is in pursuance of a provision of law that the Government may undertake the defence of its employee. When the Government in pursuance of this law incurs costs in defending a public officer it has, in a sense, an interest in the suit and by implication it is entitled to be reimbursed of the costs incurred in the defence, if the defence prevails. It was obviously for these considerations that the trial Court in passing the decree ordered that the costs incurred in the defence of the suit shall be payable to the Government it cannot be denied that under the decree the Government has been given a right to realise the decreed costs. Now when there is a right there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Civil Court which is not a decree. 14. Assuming, therefore, that that portion of the operative order of the trial Court which provided for the payment of the costs to the U. P. Government was not a decree, it was certainly an "order" and was no doubt capable of execution. The U. P. Government is, therefore, a decree-holder as defined in Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection I may refer to the case of Vythininga Pandarasannadhi v. Board of Control, Thiagarajaswami Devasthanatm 7 in which it was held that a decree-bolder need not be a party to the decree, it is enough if the decree confers some right enforceable under the decree upon some person mentioned in it. The U. P. Government, having under....