Calcutta High Court
Jhabar Mahomed vs Modan Sonahar on 23 June, 1885
Equivalent citations: (1885)ILR 11CAL671
JUDGMENT Richard Garth, C.J. and Ghose, J.
1. In our opinion the instalment bond, upon which this suit is brought, is not "an agreement to give time for the satisfaction of a judgment-debt," within the meaning of Section 257a of the Code.
2. We agree with the Allahabad High Court, that the provisions of that section are only intended to prevent any binding agreements between judgment-debtors and judgment-creditors for extending the time for enforcing decrees by execution without consideration, and without the sanction of the Court.
3. Those provisions are not intended to prevent the parties from entering into a fresh contract for the payment of the judgment debt by instalments or in any other way; and any such fresh contract of course could only be enforced by a fresh suit.
4. We cannot agree with the view which the Bombay High Court has taken of this question, and we think that the law as laid down by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, viz.; Gumani Dad v. Prankishori Dasi 5 B.L.R. 223 virtually remains unaltered.