Hari Mahadev Vadekar Vs. Vishnu Balkrishna Risbud

indian limitation act (ix of 1908), article 182--decree,--execution--step-in-aid of execution--darkhast against a wrong legal representative of deceased judgment-debtor.;a bona fide application against a wrong person as the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor serves to save limitation.;balkishen das v. bedmali koer (1892) i.l.r. 20 cal. 388, 396, hari v. narayan (1887) i.l.r. 12 bom. 427, and ramaswami chettiar v. oppilamani chetti (1909) i.l.r. 33 mad. 6, followed. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the commissionerincome tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--reason to believe--commissioner considering extensive information and anonymous petitions and undertaking detailed scrutiny. income tax act 1961 s.132madgavkar, j.1. the question in this appeal is whether the present darkhast is in time. that depends upon the question whether the darkhast of april 15, 1920, was a step-in-aid of execution, as both the lower courts have held.2. in that darkhast, the judgment-debtor devki died leaving minor children and her husband. instead of presenting the darkhast against the children by their guardian the father as the legal representative, the darkhast of 1920, was against the husband of devki as such. that mistake was subsequently corrected. but it is nevertheless a bona fide mistake as the decree-holder had nothing to gain by omitting the children by their guardian the father and putting forward the father alone. in this view, the case falls within the class of cases where all bona fide applications against a wrong person as the legal representative save limitation: balkishen das v. bedmati koer ilr (1892) cal. 388, hari v. narayan ilr (1887) 12 bom. 427, and ramaswami chettiar v. oppilamani chetti ilr (1909) mad. 6. the appeal is dismissed with costs.