Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Virina Soorayya vs Virina Mallayya And Ors. on 25 January, 1955
The question is which the execution of the Kavali decree was stayed by the order (Ex. A-2) dated 22-2-1957. If it amounted to a stay order for the purpose of Section 15, then beyond doubt, the E. P. would be saved by limitation by exclusion of the period from 22-2-1957 to 10-2-1960. The order (Ex A-2) has already been extracted in this judgment. On a similar order passed by the Collector, a Division Bench of this Court in Soorayya v. Mallayya, relying on the decisions in Kadimcherja Raju v. Kondapi Ayyapa Raju, AIR 1935 Mad 352 and Channabasappa Nagappa v. Holibasappa Basappa, AIR 1924 Bom 383 and Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Durga Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal 140 observed as follows (at p 232)
"It will be seen from the aforesaid decisions that the scope of the provisions of Section 15, Limitation Act, is confined only to an absolute stay granted by Courts The principle underlying this section is apparent It the execution of the decree was stayed, it would be an unnecessary burden on the decree-holder and an empty formality if he should be compelled to file execution application at the risk of his decree otherwise being getting barred. A decree, which has been stayed, cannot obviously be executed. So, under this section, the period covered by the stay order is allowed to be excluded from the period of limitation.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Saroj Ranjan Sinha And Ors. vs Joy Durga Dasi on 6 June, 1933
The question is which the execution of the Kavali decree was stayed by the order (Ex. A-2) dated 22-2-1957. If it amounted to a stay order for the purpose of Section 15, then beyond doubt, the E. P. would be saved by limitation by exclusion of the period from 22-2-1957 to 10-2-1960. The order (Ex A-2) has already been extracted in this judgment. On a similar order passed by the Collector, a Division Bench of this Court in Soorayya v. Mallayya, relying on the decisions in Kadimcherja Raju v. Kondapi Ayyapa Raju, AIR 1935 Mad 352 and Channabasappa Nagappa v. Holibasappa Basappa, AIR 1924 Bom 383 and Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Durga Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal 140 observed as follows (at p 232)
"It will be seen from the aforesaid decisions that the scope of the provisions of Section 15, Limitation Act, is confined only to an absolute stay granted by Courts The principle underlying this section is apparent It the execution of the decree was stayed, it would be an unnecessary burden on the decree-holder and an empty formality if he should be compelled to file execution application at the risk of his decree otherwise being getting barred. A decree, which has been stayed, cannot obviously be executed. So, under this section, the period covered by the stay order is allowed to be excluded from the period of limitation.
Chanbasappa Nagappa Haveri vs Hotjbasappa Basappa Motibeknnur on 1 February, 1924
The question is which the execution of the Kavali decree was stayed by the order (Ex. A-2) dated 22-2-1957. If it amounted to a stay order for the purpose of Section 15, then beyond doubt, the E. P. would be saved by limitation by exclusion of the period from 22-2-1957 to 10-2-1960. The order (Ex A-2) has already been extracted in this judgment. On a similar order passed by the Collector, a Division Bench of this Court in Soorayya v. Mallayya, relying on the decisions in Kadimcherja Raju v. Kondapi Ayyapa Raju, AIR 1935 Mad 352 and Channabasappa Nagappa v. Holibasappa Basappa, AIR 1924 Bom 383 and Saroj Ranjan Sinha v. Joy Durga Dassi, AIR 1934 Cal 140 observed as follows (at p 232)
"It will be seen from the aforesaid decisions that the scope of the provisions of Section 15, Limitation Act, is confined only to an absolute stay granted by Courts The principle underlying this section is apparent It the execution of the decree was stayed, it would be an unnecessary burden on the decree-holder and an empty formality if he should be compelled to file execution application at the risk of his decree otherwise being getting barred. A decree, which has been stayed, cannot obviously be executed. So, under this section, the period covered by the stay order is allowed to be excluded from the period of limitation.
1