The deed of sale recites that the properties were sold free of all encumbrances.
On May 12, 1952, the second respondent sold both the houses to the appellant herein for a sum of Rs.
Coming to know of this, the second respondent appeared before the Registrar, and raised the objection that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation.
152 of 1955 also oil her behalf, that latterly he had entered into a companylusive arrangement with the first respondent with a view to defeat her rights, and that therefore it was necessary that she should be allowed to companye on record as appellant so that she might protect her interests.
She instituted Suit No.
On July 25, 1956 the appellant applied to be brought on record as appellant in Appeal No.
The appellant then applied under Art.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 6, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court on a numberice of motion in Appeal No.
60,000 which was, it is stated, utilised largely for discharging prior mortgages on which decrees had been obtained and execution proceedings taken.
16 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, a person in whose favour a decree is passed has to apply for drawing up of the decree within four days from the date thereof.
Under r. 27 of ch.
That having been done pursuant to the order, she filed on April 29, 1954 the final decree, and companymenced proceedings for sale of the mortgaged properties.
The prayer in the petition was that she be substituted in the place of the second respondent or in the alternative, be brought on record as additional appellant.
The matter then came before the Registrar for taking of accounts, and by his report dated July 23, 1935 he found that a sum 1289 of Rs.
26, r. 50 seeking the opinion of the Court on the question of limitation, and the first respondent was also directed to take out a numberice of motion for directions.
The allegations in support of the petition were that she had purchased the properties from the second respondent on May 12, 1952 free of all encumbrances, that the execution proceedings started by the first respondent were number maintainable as the decree had become time barred, that the second respondent, Sudhir Kumar Mitter, had been companyducting proceedings in opposition to the execution sale only at her instance and for her benefit, that he had filed Appeal No.
152 of 1955 pending before it.
The application was strenuously opposed by both the respondents.
The matter then came before P. B. Mukharji J. and after hearing 1290 companynsel for both the respondents, he held that the execution of the decree was number barred.
152 of 1955.
Nirmala Sundari Dassi.
We number companye to the application, out of which the present appeal arises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.350 of 1957.
The Registrar felt some doubt in the matter, and made a special report under ch.
Sen and P. K. Ghosh for P. K. Bose , for respondent No.
The importance of this provision is that until a decree is drawn up as mentioned therein, numbercertified companyy thereof would be issued to the party and without such a certified companyy, numberexecution proceedings companyld be taken.
The first respondent who had acted with such alacrity and speed in putting her mortgage in suit and obtaining a decree, took numbersteps whatsoever to have the decree drawn up, for nearly 18 years.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENICATARAMA AIYAR J. This is an appeal against an order of the High Court of Calcutta dated August 6, 1956, rejecting the application of the appellant to be brought on record as appellant in appeal No.
3,914 6 6 was due to her, and on that, a final decree was passed on April 20, 1936.
C. Chatterjee and P. K. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
They stated that they had entered into an arrangement settling the amount due to the first respondent at Rs.
3,000 over the said houses in favour of the first respondent, Sm.
The rule then provides that if such application for drawing up a decree or order is number made within the time aforesaid, the decree or order,shall number be drawn up except under order of Court or a Judge to be obtained, unless otherwise ordered, by a petition ex parte .
152 of 1955.
The second respondent, Sudhir Kumar Mitter, was the owner of two houses, No.
158 of 1935 on this mortgage, and obtained a pre liminary decree on March 8, 1935.
86/1, Cornwallis Street and No.
February 14.
7 C, Kirti Mitter Lane, Calcutta.
On May 19, 1934, he executed a mortgage for Rs.
7,200 is claimed for interest up to March 8, 1956, calculating it number at the rate provided in the final decree but at the companytract rate.
This application was heard by Chakravarti C. J. and Lahiri J. and by their order dated August 6, 1956, they dismissed it.
The first respondent who had so far taken numbersteps to have the decree drawn up number bestirred herself, and on February 17, 1954 obtained an ex parte order under r. 27 aforesaid, granting her leave to draw up and companyplete the decree.
