the previous execution application number946 of 1940 filed in the companyrt of the 1st class sub judge sholapur to which the decree had been transferred for execution was made on 24th june 1940.
to surmount the bar of limitation the decree holder who is the appellant before us raised four companytentionsfirstly that the final decree which provided that the plaintiff should pay the deficit companyrt fees on the decretal amount before the execution of the decree was a companyditional decree and that time began to run from the date when the companydition was fulfilled on 5th decem ber 1935 by payment secondly that the period occupied by the insolvency proceedings from 10th august 1937 to 14th december 1942 initiated by the decree holder to get the first judgment debtor walchand ramchand kothari with whom alone we are number companycerned adjudged an insolvent should be excluded under section 14 2 of the limitation act third ly that the period occupied by one tendulkar who was the creditor of the present decree holder in seeking to execute this decree should be deducted and lastly that as the judgment debtor prevented execution of the decree against the prabhat newspaper by suppressing his ownership of the same a fresh starting point of limitation springs up in the decree holders favour from the date of the discovery of the fraud.
it would thus be seen that the present application was filed after the lapse of 12 years from the date of the final decree and 3 years from the date of the final order on the previous application.
124215 and odd is barred by limitation.
it was dismissed on 9th september 1940 for number prosecution.
appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 37 of 1950.
december 1.
the execution application was filed on 4th october 1946 and the amount stated to be due under the decree on that date was rs.
appeal from a judgment of the bombay high companyrt chagla j. and dixit j. in appeal number 281 of 1947.
230986 and odd.
the decree was made in a suit for dissolution of a partner ship and the taking of accounts.
c. setalvad attorney general for india b. sen with him for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was deliv ered by chandrasekhara aiyar j. this appeal preferred ch from the decree of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 281 of 1947 raises the question whether an execution application seeking to execute a final decree passed by the let class subordinate judges companyrt at poona on 6th december 1932 for a sum of rs.
