Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It may however be stated that the decree-holder in O. S. 32 of 1935 viz., Katragadda Nagaratnamma filed a suit O. S. No. 67/33 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenali against Devineni Basavayya and Devineni Raghavayya. That suit was dismissed with costs. There was an appeal against the dismissal of that suit, which also was dismissed on 9-9-1938 (vide Ex. A-8). Since the costs were not paid by Katragadda Nagaratnamma, the judgment-debtor, Devineni Basavayya and Raghavayya filed E. P. 67/40 for execution and had a precept issued by the Sub Court, Tenali, to the District Judge's Court, Masulipatam, for staying the execution of the decree in O. S. No. 32/35. This precept was issued on 5-11-1940 and was served on the Sheristadar of the District Court, Masulipatam on 15-11-1940 (vide Ex. A-3(a)). After this precept was issued, Nagaratnamma filed E. P. 41/42 in O. S. 32/35 in the District Court. Masulipatam, on 6-3-1942 (vide Ex. A-4). But this E. P. was returned on the ground that the decree in O. S. 32/35 was attached in O. S. 67/33, Sub Court, Tenali. The Plaintiff (Nagaratnamma) stated that she had put in a petition in the attaching Court for permission to execute her decree. Notice were directed to be issued to the Sub Court, Tenali, and several adjournments were given for payment of batta and for awaiting return of those notices. Ultimately, the attaching decree-holders (Devineni Basavayya and Raghavayya) were personally served on 9-11-1942 and the case was posted for ascertainment of the result of the petition for permission said to have been filed in the Tenali Sub Court. On 12-11-1942, the District Judge noted that permission from the attaching Court was not produced and accordingly dismissed E. P. 41/42. After the dismissal of that E. P. the plaintiff filed E. P. 3/46 in O. S. 32/35 (Ex. A-5) on 29-10-1945. But since the decree was still under attachment by reason of the precept issued by the Sub-Court, Tenali, notices under Order 21, Rule-22 to the attaching decree-holders and the judgment-debtors in O. S. 32/35 were ordered on 29-1-46. But as the batta was not paid, the E. P. was dismissed on 1-3-1946.

"Apart from this, as this decree was attached in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 67/33 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenali, this decree could not be executed. The said attachment was in force till the year 1946. For that reason also the E. P. dated 29-10-1945 should be revived and continued. Hence the rule of 12 years Limitation will not apply to the execution of this decree. Moreover this decree was amended as per Act IV of 1938. The decree can be executed within 12 years from the date of the amended decree. In these circumstances, there is no Limitation for the execution of this decree."

9. On the third question, the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the period during which the attachment of the decree in O. S. 32/35 was continued as a result of the precept issued by the Sub Court, Tenali, in execution of the decree in O. S. 67/33 should be deducted under Sec. 15 and if the 5 years 2 months and 21 days is deducted in computing the period of 12 years under Section 48, Civil P. C. the execution petition 83/52 would be well within time. We have already stated that the precept Ex. A-3 (a) issued by the Tenali Court in execution of the decree in O. S. 67/33 was served on the of the District Court, Masulipatam on 15-11-1940. Both the learned Advocates appear to have assumed under some misapprehension that this precept was issued under Sec. 46 Civil P.C.. On this assumption the learned Advocate for the respondents, Sri Srinivasa Rao contended that by virtue of the proviso to Section 46 Civil P.C. no attachment under that precept can continue for more than 2 months, unless the period of attachment is extended by an order of the Court which passed the decree or unless before the determination of such attachment the decree has been transferred to the Court by which the attachment has been made and the decree-holder has applied for an order for sale of such property. This was countered by Mr .Dikshitulu for the appellants who submits that due to the fault of the Court, E. P. 41/42 was not proceeded with on the ground that there was an attachment of the decree by the Tenali Court in O. S. 67/33. If the precept could only endure for two months, then the attachment would not subsist on the date when the decree holder filed E. P. 41/42 and the Court ought to have proceeded with the execution, and that for this fault of the Court in not proceeding with the execution of the decree, the decree-holder ought not to be made to suffer. It however became apparent during the course of the arguments, when we called for the original precept Ex. A-3 (a), that the order of attachment was issued under Order 21, Rule 53, Civil P.C. and was effected by a notice in Form 22 in Appendix E of the Civil Procedure Code. This form is in conformity with sub-rule (4) of R. 53, of Order 21, which is as below:

12. The attachment in this case, as we have already stated, is in Form 22 and therefore there is no question of the attachment ceasing to have effect after 2 months. On the other hand, it will continue till the happening of one of the contingencies specified in Form 22. While no doubt the decree-holder was unable to execute the decree as long as the attachment in O. S. 67/33 by the Tenali Sub-Court continued, it is contended by Mr. Srinivasa Rao that it is due to the fault of the decree-holder, the execution could not be proceeded with, because the decree-holder could have paid the amount to the attaching decree-holders in O. S. 67/33 and satisfied the decree or could have moved to obtain permission from the Tenali Sub Court to raise the attachment, which is what she had represented to the District Court, Masulipatam that she would do when an objection to the execution was taken by that Court. There is force in this contention, inasmuch as attachment under Order 21, Rule 53 does not amount to an absolute stay because it is within the power of both the holder of the decree sought to be executed and the holder of the decree attached, if they choose, they can execute the decree by getting the notice withdrawn. The crucial question is whether an attachment under Order 21, Rule 53 satisfies the requirement of Section 15 of the Limitation Act in order that the period during which the attachment subsisted, can be excluded for the filing of the execution application. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Kandaswami Pillai v. Kannappa Chetty, (FB), no doubt held that Section 48, Civil P.C. is controlled by Section 15 of the Limitation Act. In that case, an insolvency Court ordered stay of execution of the decree on 18-8-1931 under Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and that stay continued till 10-2-1942, when the decree-holder filed an I. A. in the said E. P. and got permission to execute the decree and put the proceeds into Court. when two E. Ps. were filed in 1942, they were dismissed in limine as having been barred by Limitation under Section 48 Civil P.C. Later he filed another E. P. and claimed that it was in time as he was entitled, under Section 15 of the Limitation Act, to deduct the period from 18-8-1931 to 10-2-1942 covered by the stay order given by the insolvency Court for which he was not responsible. There is no doubt that a stay of institution of a suit or an application for execution of a decree by an injunction or order entitles the plaintiff or the decree-holder to exclude the period during which that stay or injunction continues, in computing the period of Limitation prescribed for any suit or application for execution and accordingly the period during which the stay of execution of the decree continued, would be an order contemplated by Sec. 15 of the Limitation Act. WE are for the present not concerned as to whether Sec. 48, Civil P.C. is controlled by Section 15, Limitation Act. The question is whether the attachment under Order 21, R. 53, Civil P.C. would amount to an injunction or order of stay within the meaning of Section 15. It has been held that it does not.