Ramjas Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.

Ramjas vs Ram NaraIn and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 22, 1917

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473283

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/473283
Court: Allahabad
Judge: George Knox and ;Tudball, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 22, 1917
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Schedule I, Article 182, Clause (5), Section 14 - Execution--Application, not made to proper Court--Limitation, saving of--Jurisdiction--Res judicata. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramjas

Respondent

Ram NaraIn and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1917All370; 39Ind.Cas.796

Excerpt

limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182, clause (5), section 14 - execution--application, not made to proper court--limitation, saving of--jurisdiction--res judicata. - 1. the sole matter which arises for decision in the present appeal is whether the execution proceedings are barred by limitation or not. in dealing with this we are confronted with a decision passed in this very case, inter partes on the 24th of november 1915. the 1st additional district judge who was then dealing with the case in most clear terms held that the munsif could not entertain the present application and had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. these findings of the additional district judge were not taken into appeal and the matter is, therefore, res judicata so far as the present application is concerned. under these circumstances the application of the 3rd of february 1913 does not save time. it is unnecessary to decide the other points raised in the case. the appeal is allowed and the application for execution will be dismissed with costs in all courts.

Full Judgment

1. The sole matter which arises for decision in the present appeal is whether the execution proceedings are barred by limitation or not. In dealing with this we are confronted with a decision passed in this very case, inter partes on the 24th of November 1915. The 1st Additional District Judge who was then dealing with the case in most clear terms held that the Munsif could not entertain the present application and had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. These findings of the Additional District Judge were not taken into appeal and the matter is, therefore, res judicata so far as the present application is concerned. Under these circumstances the application of the 3rd of February 1913 does not save time. It is unnecessary to decide the other points raised in the case. The appeal is allowed and the application for execution will be dismissed with costs in all Courts.

Same Parties Ramjas vs Ram NaraIn and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge George Knox and ;Tudball, JJ.

Civil