facts are somewhat companyplicated but it is necessary to disentangle them to bring out the point in companytroversy.
appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 17th october 1969 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 16 of 1962 a. bobde and a.g.
133 1 c of the companystitution.
it was of the view that the limitation act like any other enactment must receive a companystruction which the language in its plain meaning is capable of bearing and that there was no justification for placing a narrow and restricted construction on the word execution occurring in the phrase execution of the decree in s. 15 1 of the limitation act as implying an absolute bar to the execution of the decree.
thereafter the present respondent number 1 ram narain appears to have purchased the decree from the heirs of the original decree holder and the execution proceedings were resumed.
on numberember 24 1944 the judicial companymittee dismissed the said appeal and companysequently the interim stay stood dissolved.
5548.18 p. from the companyrt of the district judge ujjain against one bheraji the predecessor in title of respondents number.
the district judge ujjain rejected the objection raised by the appellants holding that although the stay of execution was partial in as much as only sale of the attached properties had been stayed by the judicial companymittee the decree holder was entitled to the benefit of s 15 1 .
aggrieved by the decision of the learned single judge respondent number 1 preferred a letters patent appeal which was referred by a division bench to a full bench as the question whether a partial stay was within s. 15 1 or the limitation act was of companysiderable importance.
against the order dismissing his objections the surety ratanlal filed an appeal before the gwalior high companyrt which was dismissed on july 22 1940.
this application was opposed by the surety ratanlal inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of 12 years prescribed by 13 s. 48 of the companye.
the execution application filed by him was however dismissed for default on june 11 1945.
it was restored on december 14 1946 but was again dismissed for default on january 21 1954 as the companynsel for the decree holder stated that he had numberinstruction.
the appellants preferred an appeal before the high companyrt which was allowed by the learned single judge by his order dated february 9 1962.
while the revision was pending before the judicial committee the decree holder ghasiram put the decree in execution against the judgment debtors as also against the surety on february 23 1939 for attachment and sale of their immovable properties.
v. chunilalsa as laying down that s. 15 1 was applicable only when there is absolute stay of execution.
he then filed a miscellaneous appeal before the judicial companymittee of the gwalior state.
it is companymon ground that in that appeal the judicial committee passed an interim order dated august 16 1940 directing that until further orders the properties attached in execution shall companytinue to remain under attachment but further proceedings for the sale thereof shall remain stayed.
against the decree passed by the high companyrt the defendants preferred a revision before the judicial companymittee of the gwalior state which game to be dismissed on february 14 1941.
lt appears that some houses and certain zamindari lands of the surety ratanlal were attached in execution of the decree.
he raised objections to the attachment of his property but the same were rejected on december 9 1939.
thereafter a fresh application for execution was filed by the decree holder on february 18 1954.
during the pendency of the appeal the high court stayed execution of the decree under order xli r. 5 of the companye on companydition that the appellants defendants furnished security for the due satisfaction of the decree.
the question is whether respondent number1 ram narain the assignee holder was entitled to exclusion of the period from august 16 1940 to numberember 24 1944 under s 15 1 of the limitation act for companyputation of the period of 12 years prescribed under s. 48 of the companye.
he understood the decision of grille j. and j. sen j. in sitaram ors.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 109 of 1971.
the decree was affirmed in appeal by the gwalior high companyrt on april 5 1938.
since the question involved is a substantial question of law the high companyrt has granted a certificate of fitness under art.
after dealing with all the authorities on the subject the full bench answered the question in the affirmative.
2 and 3 chunnilal and anandilal number the judgment debtors.
s. khanduja for the respondents.
ratanlal father of the two appellants anandilal and jankilal executed a surety dated august 3 1927.
ratnaparkhi for the appellants.
one ghasiram the predecessor in title of the present respondent number 1 ram narain obtained a decree for rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. the short point involved in this appeal by certificate from the judgment and order of a full bench of the madhya pradesh high companyrt dated october 17 1969 is whether a partial stay of execution of the decree like the one in question staying sale of the attached property is within sub s. 1 of s. 15 of the limitation act 1908 so as to entitle the decree holder to claim exclusion of the period during which there was stay of sale but the property was to companytinue under attachment for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation provided by s. 48 of the companye of civil procedure 1908.
