Umesh Chunder Dutta and ors. Vs. Soonder NaraIn Deo and ors.

Umesh Chunder Dutta and ors. vs Soonder NaraIn Deo and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 18, 1889

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/859685

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/859685
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Prinsep and ;Hill, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 18, 1889
Subject: Property;Limitation

Case Summary

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

Limitation Act, 1877, Article 179 - Application to take a step in aid of execution--Opposing application to set aside sale in execution of decree. -

Key legal issue: Property;Limitation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umesh Chunder Dutta and ors.

Respondent

Soonder NaraIn Deo and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1889)ILR16Cal747

Excerpt

limitation act, 1877, article 179 - application to take a step in aid of execution--opposing application to set aside sale in execution of decree. - prinsep and hill, jj.1. the lower courts have concurrently held that this application to execute is barred by limitation.2. the appellants' pleader contends that the application is within three years, inasmuch as it was within three years from the date of the appearance of his pleader to oppose an application made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale held in execution. we agree with the lower court that the appearance of the pleader to oppose the proceedings taken by the judgment-debtor cannot properly be regarded as an application within the terms of article 179 to take some step in aid of execution. it seems to us rather that the application, contemplated by that article of the limitation act, is an application to obtain some order of the court in furtherance of the execution of the decree. the appearance of the pleader cannot be regarded as any such application. the appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Prinsep and Hill, JJ.

1. The lower Courts have concurrently held that this application to execute is barred by limitation.

2. The appellants' pleader contends that the application is within three years, inasmuch as it was within three years from the date of the appearance of his pleader to oppose an application made by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale held in execution. We agree with the lower Court that the appearance of the pleader to oppose the proceedings taken by the judgment-debtor cannot properly be regarded as an application within the terms of Article 179 to take some step in aid of execution. It seems to us rather that the application, contemplated by that article of the Limitation Act, is an application to obtain some order of the Court in furtherance of the execution of the decree. The appearance of the pleader cannot be regarded as any such application. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Umesh Chunder Dutta and ors. vs Soonder NaraIn Deo and ors. Same Subject Property;Limitation Same Judge Prinsep and ;Hill, JJ.

Property;Limitation