Heard both parties.
The Nowgong companyrt did number pass any order recalling the order.
No objection filed by J. D. meaning thereby judgment debtor .
Meanwhile on 18 January, 1958 the appellant judgment debtor in the Gauhati suit obtained a decree against the respondent for the sum of Rs.
On 13 August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati struck off the execution application No.
On 1 March, 1958 the Nowgong companyrt passed an order which was as follows Notice served.
On 27 July, 1965 the respondent filed an application for execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 7 7 67 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in Misc.
On 26 July, 1967 the High Court accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the execution to proceed.
The High Court referred to the order dated 29 January, 1958 passed by the Nowgong Court attaching the decree obtained by the respondent.
For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed.The respondents decree became executable at that time.
Attachment to companytinue until further orders.
The decree holder preferred an appeal.
On 8 December, 1956 the respondent decree holder filed an application No.
The High Court on 28 April 1964 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the Nowgong suit filed by the appellant.
The inescapable companyclusion is that the application for execution on 27 July, 1965 is a companytinuation of the old application.
On 18 December, 1957 the Subordinate Judge Gauhati dismissed the decree holders application No.
The High Court relied on the provisions companytained in Order 21 Rule 53 1 b of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the attachment companytinued restraining the respondent from executing the decree until the numberice issued by the Court attaching the decree was recalled.
The companytention of the appellant is that the order obtained by the appellant attaching the respondents decree did number amount to a stay within the meaning of section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and therefore, the respondents application for execution which was filed on 27 July, 1965 was barred by limitation.
89/56 for executing the said decree.
On 15 April, 1958 the judgment debtor withdrew the said application.
Execution case is struck off for the present.
89/56 from the file.
On 15 July, 1957 the appellant, the judgment debtor, filed an application pleading adjustment of the decree.
The High Court at Gauhati on 1 July, 1959 set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and allowed the appeal for execution of the decree.
858 of 1968.
36 and 37 of 1966.
71,980 in a money suit filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gauhati.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On 4 March, 1966 the Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution application as barred by time.
The respondent filed an appeal against the decree obtained by the appellant in the Nowgong suit.
In execution of the decree in the Nowgong suit the appellant on or about 29 January, 1958 obtained an attachment of the respondents decree passed in the Gauhati suit.
Sarjoo Prasad and A. K. Nag for the appellant.
The appellant companytended that when the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati on 13 August, 1959 struck off the execution application of the respondent the respondent should have filed an application for execution within three years from that date.
Appeal Nos.
In the companytext of this order of attachment passed by the Nowgong companyrt the attachment companytinued until the Nowgong suit was dismissed by the High Court on 28 April, 1964.
The order striking off the execution application has been rightly companystrued by the High Court as merely companysigning the application to the Record Room for statistical purposes.
The attachment order was nullified only when the appellants suit was dismissed by the High Court on 28 April, 1964.
The application dated 27 July, 1965 indicates in companyumn 2 as the respondent rightly stated that the previous application for execution was struck off on 13 August, 1959 because of the order of attachment passed by the Nowgong companyrt.
1,22,000 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong.
89/56.
The appellant preferred an objection companytending that the application is barred by limitation.
The respondent on 7 January, 1952 obtained a decree against the appellant for the sum of Rs.
The only question in this appeal is whether the respondents application filed on 27 July, 1965 for execution of the decree obtained by him is barred by limitation.
P. Maheshwari for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate is from the order dated 26 July, 1967 of the High Court of Assam.
The order obtained by the appellant attaching the decree of the respondent in the Gauhati suit has been rightly held by the High Court to have precluded the respondent from executing the decree during the time the attachment was in force.
89/56 the execution application filed on 27 July, 1965 was barred by time.
