In the companynter affidavit filed by one of the judgment debtors it is stated that E.P. 13 of 1939 was dismissed on December 28, 1948 and number merely closed.
Petitioner may file a regular E.P. on which proceedings will companytinue from the stage at which they were left in E.P. 13 of 1939.
After the disposal of the appeal by the High Court and before the filing of E.P. No.
13 of 1939.
On February 15, 1939, the decree holders filed an application for execution of the decree, being E.P. No.
B 4 annexed thereto.
On appeal, the High Court of Madras set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and passed a joint and several decree in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 24 to 27 for a sum of Rs.
The Subordinate Judge must have presumably looked into the previous record.
On appeal, a division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court took a different view and held that E.P. 13 of 1939 was merely closed for statistical purposes and, there fore, the execution petition filed in 1939 was still pending and the decree holders were entitled to proceed with that petition.
On March 30, 1932, the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.
142 of 1952 for reopening E.P. No.
As the High Court stayed the execution pending the appeal filed by the judgment debtors, the decree holders were number in a position to proceed with the execution petition, and, therefore, it was closed.
On remand, the executing companyrt again dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtors.
On January 21, 1952, the decree holders made an application being E.A. No.
The actual order dated December 28, 1948 has number been placed before us.
54,350 with interest thereon.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 5, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal against order No.
13 of 1.939 and brought to sale may be sold for he realization of the money due to the decree holders and the proceeds applied for the discharge of the decree debt.
142 of 1952, in E.P. 13 of 1939 for reopening the said execution petition and for proceeding with the execution of the decree.
Later, the appeal was dismissed on April 26, 1945.
13 of 1939 was dismissed on December 28, 1948, the present application, having been filed more than 12 years from the date of the decree, was barred under s. 48 of the Code.
The judgment debtors filed a companynter affidavit pleading, inter alia, that the decree sought to be executed was made on September 22, 1938, and that as E.P. No.
26 of 1944.
But in E.P. 58 of 1953 in company 6 thereof it is mentioned that E.P. No.
But the said application was dismissed on December 12, 1945.
690 of 1962.
On October 11, 1952, the decree holders filed E.P. No.
Hence the appeal.
In that petition the decree holders prayed that the properties mentioned in the draft proclamation filed in P. No.
Against the order of dismissal of their objection, the judgment debtors filed an appeal to the High Court, being C.M.A. No.
On July 31, 1951, the High Court dismissed C.M.A. 127 of 1948.
The High Court remanded the case to the learned Subordinate Judge for disposal according to law after companysidering the other companytentions of the judgment debtors.
On September 9, 1947, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial companyrt for ascertaining whether there was an adjustment of the decree as pleaded by the judgment debtors.
The interim order was made absolute on November 24, 1948.
The judgment debtors went up on appeal to the High Court against the said order of dismissal and obtained an interim stay of P. 13 of 1939.
As the execution of the decree was stayed by the High Court, the executing companyrt made an order on E.P. 13 of 1939 to the effect that the petition was closed.
127 of 1948, in the High Court of Madras and obtained an interim stay of the execution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
575 of 1945, alleging that the decree has been adjusted and for recording satisfaction of the decree.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This appeal by certificate raises the question of the applicability of s. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, to the facts of the The relevant facts are as follows In the year 1928 one Pentapati Venkataramana filed Original Suit No.
142 of 1952 passed on October 4, 1952.
January 20, 1964.
Pending the disposal of the C.M.A., the High Court granted an interim stay of E.P. 13 of 1939.
151 of 1955.
Suryaprakasam and Sardar Bahadur, for the appellants.
13 of 1939, and prayed for realization of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of 31 items of properties described by them in the schedule Ex.
The respondent did number appear.
The learned Subordinate Judge held that though the decree holders were entitled to companytinue the previous execution petition, E.P. 58 of 1953 was a fresh application, as in form as well as in details it materially differed from the original execution petition.
3 of 1928 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, against 29 defendants for accounts of dissolved partnerships and for the recovery of amounts due to him.
58 of 1953 to companytinue further proceedings in E.P. 13 of 1939 as per the order made in E.A. No.
This order discloses that the previous execution petition was only closed.
After the dismissal of the appeal, when the decree holders sought to proceed with the execution, the judgment debtors filed another application being E.A. No.
Some argument was raised on the question whether the said execution petition was closed for statistical purposes or was dismissed that it was companytended that under the Code of Civil Procedure there was numberpower companyferred upon a companyrt to close execution proceedings for statistical purposes, and that even if such an order was made, it must be deemed to be an order dismissing the execution petition.
Against the aid order, the judgment debtors again preferred an appeal, being C.M.A. No.
The High Court further observed that the said position was number companytested by learned companynsel for the res pondents.
On that petition the learned Subordinate Judge made the following order The previous E.P. was merely closed.
The judgmentdebtors filed an objection to the attachment of some of the said items, but that was dismissed.
13 of 1939 was closed on December 28, 1948.
58 of 1953, the decree holders filed E.A. No.
