Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal (Execution) No. 194 of 1899, from a decree of H. David, ??? Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, dated the 13th May 1899

Attorney(S)

Pandit Sundar Lal, for the appellant.
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, for the respondents.

Judges

Hon'ble Mr. Harrison Falkner Blair
Hon'ble Mr. George Edward Knox

Acts

Article 178, of schedule II attached to the Limitation Act, 1877,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Legal Opinion Summary — Thakur Prasad (execution / revival)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Thakur Prasad, held a decree for sale of mortgaged property dated 11 April 1883 and first attempted execution on 29 August 1885. That execution application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 5 January 1886. A second attempt to enforce execution was made on 24 August 1888. The Subordinate Judge, on 18 December 1888, held that the decree-holder could proceed despite an objection by the judgment-debtors that the earlier dismissal barred further application.

An appeal from that order was lodged in this Court on 15 February 1889. Before judgment by this Court, the decree-holder obtained from the Subordinate Judge an order directing transfer of the attached property (ancestral property) to the Collector for sale. The order sheet shows an entry indicating the case had been struck off, an order for sale passed, and the case transferred to the Collector's Court; the order sheet ends there.

A further document purporting to be dated 23 December 1889 appears on the record: a printed paper listing papers to be sent to the Collector and an endorsement stating that the decree-holder had not deposited Re. 1 (process fee) nor filed a copy of the decree, and ordering that, for default of prosecution, the record not be sent to the Collector's Court for sale proceedings (initialed by the Subordinate Judge). The origin and authorship of that order were not apparent from the record.

This Court, on 7 January 1890, had decided that the application for execution could not be allowed because of the supposed bar in the dismissal order of 5 January 1886. The decree-holder then went to the Privy Council and, on 24 November 1894, obtained a decree setting aside the decree of this Court and (the) order(s) of the Subordinate Judge. After that decision, on 23 November 1897, the decree-holder asked the Subordinate Judge that the execution case instituted on 24 August 1888 be revived and sent to the Collector's Court. The Subordinate Judge held the application time-barred and applied the Limitation Act (Article applied is partially obscured in the record), concluding the decree was hopelessly barred. The decree-holder appealed from that order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the decree-holder's application of 23 November 1897 was a revival/continuation of the execution proceedings originally instituted on 24 August 1888 (and therefore within time under Article 178, schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1877) or whether it was a fresh application barred by limitation.
Whether the order dated 23 December 1889 (endorsing non-deposit of Re. 1 and non-filing of a copy of the decree and directing that the record not be sent to the Collector) was a valid order that terminated the execution proceedings and thereby required a fresh application to be made by the decree-holder.
Whether the decree-holder was guilty of laches (specifically, by failing to pay the process fee or file required papers) such that the doctrine of revival/continuance would not assist him.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Decree-holder / Thakur Prasad)

The appellant contended that his application of 23 November 1897 sought revival and continuation of the execution proceedings instituted on 24 August 1888 and was not a new application.
He relied on Article 178 of schedule II to the Limitation Act, 1877, asserting that his right to apply accrued from 12 December 1894 (the date of the Privy Council's order setting aside prior adverse orders) and that his 23 November 1897 application was within three years of that date.
In support of this contention he cited the precedent Muhammad Islam v. Muhammad Ahsan.

Respondent's / Opposing Counsel's Arguments (Mr. Madan Mohan Malaviya)

It was argued that, irrespective of the legal status of the 23 December 1889 entry, that order had killed the application then before the Court and put an end to it, so that the only proper course would be a fresh application for execution rather than revival.
The doctrine of revival was said to apply only where the right to execute had been suspended by an injunction or other obstacle not within the control of the decree-holder (for example, intervention by a judgment-debtor or a third party, or an act of the Court).
Mr. Malaviya contended that the decree-holder himself was to blame for the interruption because he had failed to pay the process fee and had not filed the copy of the decree held necessary by the Court; thus he had been guilty of laches and should not receive relief.
He relied on a chain of rulings (beginning with Paras Ram… v. Gardner and extending to Raghunath Sahay Singh v. Lalji Singh) for the proposition that execution proceedings are regarded as legally continued only when the interruption was not caused by the decree-holder's own fault but by objection of a judgment-debtor/third party or by the Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Muhammad Islam v. Muhammad Ahsan	Cited in support of the appellant's contention that Article 178 could apply to revive execution proceedings following the Privy Council's order.	The Court noted the precedent was cited by the appellant in support of his Article 178 argument; the Court considered this line of authority generally in assessing the doctrine of continuation/revival.
Paras Ram… (Decree-Holder) v. Gardner… (Judgment-Debtor)	Establishes that where interruption to execution proceedings was caused by illegal intervention of an outsider, a subsequent application may be in legal continuance of an earlier application that was within time.	The Court relied on this Full Bench ruling as an example of the principle that a later petition can be treated as continuation of earlier proceedings rather than a fresh application.
Raghubans Gir v. Sheosaran Gir	Illustrates revival where the interruption was due to an act of the Court and the later application conformed with a prior court direction to move on the former application.	The Court observed this case supports the view that an application made to carry out a prior court order may be treated as a continuation of former proceedings.
Booboo Pyaroo Tuhobildarinee v. Syud Nazir Hossein	Shows that where execution was struck off upon a third-party claim and that claim was later set aside, the decree-holder's later return to the original application may be treated as continuous even after more than three years.	The Court cited it as authority that removal of an obstacle caused by a third party can render the later application a continuation of earlier proceedings.
Kalyanbhai Dipchand v. Ghanashamlal Jadunathji (Bombay High Court)	Reviewed similar precedents and held that an application made after removal of an obstacle which temporarily rendered execution impossible was merely a continuation of former proceedings.	The Court noted the Bombay decision as supporting the general rule that post-obstacle applications can be continuations, and that the distinction about the origin of the obstacle was not treated in that precedent.
Basant Lal v. Batul Bibi	Mentioned as going further on related questions (no specific distinguishing rule set out in the opinion).	The Court observed the case but stated it need not consider it for present purposes and that nothing relevant to the specific doctrine being contended for was laid down therein in the present opinion.
Baikanta Nath Mittra v. Aughore Nath Bose	Held (following Chandra Prodhan v. Gopi Mohun Saha) that an application expressly called a continuation of former proceedings may be treated as such, at least as to the property mentioned in the former application.	The Court cited this case to show that where a decree-holder characterizes an application as a continuation, courts have accepted that characterization without necessarily examining the origin of the obstacle.
Chandra Prodhan v. Gopi Mohun Saha	Referenced as an authority harmonious with a series of decisions that support treating certain later applications as continuations of earlier ones.	The Court noted that Baikanta Nath Mittra followed this precedent and that it formed part of the body of authority on continuance of execution proceedings.
Raghunath Sahay Singh v. Lalji Singh	Recent decision in which many of the earlier cases were considered; the judges did not appear to focus on whether the obstacle was caused by the decree-holder or by another party.	The Court treated this as one of the most recent decisions on the point and as part of the chain supporting the general approach that revival/continuation may be permitted without emphasis on the origin of the obstacle.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by accepting that the earlier application of 24 August 1888 was an application for execution within time. The central enquiry was whether the 23 November 1897 application amounted to a revival/continuation of those earlier proceedings (and therefore within Article 178) or whether intervening events (notably the 23 December 1889 endorsement) had terminated the proceedings so that a fresh application, possibly time-barred, would have been required.

The Court reviewed the record and found that the order sheet closed with the Subordinate Judge's order of 18 December 1888 granting the decree-holder what he requested; no mention of any later valid order was present on the order sheet. The Court described the 23 December 1889 entry (the printed paper with an endorsement that the decree-holder had not deposited Re. 1 and had not filed a copy of the decree, and an order not to send the record to the Collector) as anomalous: it recited no author or origin and, in the Court's view, was an interpolation. The Court expressed the view (on the evidentiary record) that this endorsement was likely the work of an execution clerk seeking to dispose of a troublesome record at year-end and was not an order communicated to or caused by the decree-holder or his pleader.

The Court also considered the legal validity of requiring a copy of the decree or the payment of Re. 1 to proceed. It observed that Notification No. 671 of 30 September 1880 (Rule VI) provided that the Court shall prepare and transmit necessary documents to the Collector and that such documents shall be prepared and transmitted free of cost to the parties by the Court establishment. On that basis, the Court concluded that the alleged requirement that the decree-holder deposit Re. 1 or file a copy of the decree was contrary to law.

Turning to authorities, the Court reviewed a chain of decisions (Paras Ram… v. Gardner…; Raghubans Gir v. Sheosaran Gir; Booboo Pyaroo Tuhobildarinee v. Syud Nazir Hossein; Kalyanbhai Dipchand v. Ghanashamlal Jadunathji; Baikanta Nath Mittra v. Aughore Nath Bose; Chandra Prodhan v. Gopi Mohun Saha; Raghunath Sahay Singh v. Lalji Singh) and extracted a consistent principle: when execution proceedings are stayed or interrupted by an obstacle (whether by a third party, by the Court, or by other events) and the decree-holder had made an application within time and obtained an order granting his request, then after the obstacle is removed a subsequent application to remove that stay and proceed may be treated as a continuation of the former proceedings rather than a fresh application.

The Court explicitly limited its holding. It stated that its decision was not intended to apply to cases where the decree-holder had acted dilatorily. Where a decree-holder's own laches caused the interruption, the Court would not assist him. But on the facts before it the Court found no such laches: the decree-holder had been dilatory up to January 1886 only to the extent reflected in the earlier dismissal; thereafter he proceeded diligently up to 18 December 1888 and had reason to believe that the Court's order would be carried to the Collector. The 23 December 1889 entry had not been communicated to him and was, in the Court's view, not a valid obstacle attributable to him. Therefore his later application for revival was properly regarded as a continuation of the prior proceedings.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The appeal is allowed — APPEAL DECREED.

Direct consequences (as stated by the Court):

The order of the Court below (the Subordinate Judge's order holding the application time-barred) is set aside.
The proceedings are returned to the Subordinate Court to be carried out according to law (i.e., the execution proceedings are to be revived and pursued in conformity with the Court's directions and legal requirements).
The appellant (decree-holder) is awarded his costs in all Courts.

Broader principle articulated by the Court (explicitly limited in the opinion):

The Court held that where a decree-holder has made a timely application and has obtained an order enabling execution, and where completion of that order is suspended by some obstacle (not caused by the decree-holder) which is later removed, then a subsequent application to have the earlier order carried into effect is not a fresh application but a prayer to revive and continue the suspended order.
The Court emphasized that this doctrine does not apply when the interruption is due to the decree-holder's own laches; questions of whether execution proceedings were struck off because of the decree-holder's fault are matters of fact to be determined on the record.

Note: This summary is drawn strictly from the language and content of the provided opinion. Quotations, case references and legal principles are summarized only to the extent they appear in the opinion itself.

Show full summary ...

Thakur Prasad (Decree-Holder) v. Abdul Hasan And Another (Objectors).

Knox, A.C.J and Blair, J.:— The appellant in this case is one Thakur Prasad, the holder of a decree for sale of certain mortgaged property. The respondents are judgment-debtors. The decree was obtained by the appellant on the 11th of April, 1883, and he proceeded to put it into execution on the 29th of August, 1885. His application for execution was, however, dismissed for want of prosecution on the 5th January, 1886.

On the 24th of August, 1888, he made a second attempt to enforce execution. The judgment-debtor opposed the application on the ground that the first application was struck off, and that the order striking it off was a bar to any further application to the same effect. The Subordinate Judge brushed aside the objection, and held, on the 18th of December, 1888, that the decree-holder could proceed.

This order was appealed to this Court on the 15th of February, 1889. Before, however, judgment could be given, the decree-holder obtained from the Subordinate Judge an order directing that as the property attached was ancestral property, the case be transferred to the Collector. Turning to the order sheet in this case we find the following entry:—“The case has been struck off—order for sale has been passed—the case has been transferred to the Collector's Court for sale proceedings.” This entry is attested by the initials of the Subordinate Judge. The translation of the order given in the judgment of the Court below, which represents the above order as one to take place in future, is an error. The words used show that the transaction referred to in the order is a matter of the past. The order sheet ends here. No other order of any kind finds a place upon its leaves. It is therefore with some surprise that we find on the record a proceeding purporting to bear the date of December 23rd, 1889. It is a printed paper which begins by setting out the names of parties and the amount of demand. It then recites the order of the 29th of November, and that order is rounded off with the initials of the Subordinate Judge. Below those initials come two lines of writing. These lines set out a list of papers which had to go to the Collector of Allahabad. The last entry on the list runs thus:—“The decree-holder has not filed 1, the copy of the decree.” On the reverse of this document the following order has been endorsed:—

“In this case the decree-holder has not up to this date deposited Re. 1 on account of the order for sale by auction and the copy of the decree to be sent to the Collector's Court; therefore it is ordered that in default of prosecution on the part of the decree-holder the record be not sent to the Collector's Court for taking the sale proceedings 23rd December, 1889.”

This is initialed by the Subordinate Judge.

It does not appear at whose instance this order was passed, or how it came to be passed at all. We shall have to refer to it again.

On the 7th of January, 1890, this Court decided that the application for execution could not be allowed, because of the bar supposed to be contained in the dismissal order of the 5th January, 1886. The decree-holder, however, went on to the Privy Council and obtained from, their Lordships, on the 24th November 1894, a decree setting aside the decree of this Court and ??? that of the Subordinate Judge. Having ??? this the decree-holder returned, and, on the 23rd November 1897, he asked the Subordinate Judge that “the execution case instituted on the 24th August, 1888, may be revived and sent to the Collector's Court.” The Subordinate Judge held that this application was time barred. He lays ??? upon the fact that no obstacle or obstruction has been ??? way of the decree-holder by the judgment-debtor or ??? and, this being the case, Article 178 of the second ??? of the Indian Limitation Act would not, in ??? to the case. The article he applied was Article ??? the decree was held hopelessly barred. It is from this order that the present appeal has been filed.

From the above resume it will be vide at that the application of the 24th of August, 1888, was an application for execution within time. The decree-holder says that he has come to the Court asking for a revival and continuation of those proceedings. He does not profess to be making a new application for execution, and it is contended on his behalf that lie is within time, inasmuch as his present application falls under Article 178, of schedule II attached to the Limitation Act, 1877, and the right to apply accrued from the 12th of December, 1894; that this application having been presented on the 23rd November, 1897, is within Three years of the order of Her Majesty in Council setting aside the orders which stood against him, this being the date on which his present right to apply accrued. In support of this contention the precedent Muhammad Islam v. Muhammad Ahsan was cited. Mr. Madan Mohan Malaviya on the opposite side argued with much ability that, whatever might have been the force of the order of the 23rd of December, 1889, so far as killing the decree was concerned, it certainly was an order which killed the application then before the Court and put an end to it. The only way in which the proceedings could be renewed would be by a fresh application. The doctrine of revival would not be applicable to a case like this. It was contended that doctrine had force only when the right to execute had been subsequently suspended by an injunction or other obstacle not within the control of, or caused by the decree-holder. In the present case the person to be blamed was, so he argued, the decree-holder. Whether the order of the Court at to close of the year 1839 was or was not a good order, the decree-holder was clearly guilty of laches in not having paid the process fee required from him and in not having filed the papers which the Court had held to be necessary. A long chain of rulings beginning with Paras Ram…(Decree-Holder); v. Gardner…(Judgment-Debtor). and extending down to Raghunath Sahay Singh v. Lalji Singh has uniformly maintained that a decree-holder's proceedings could only be held to be legally continued when the interruption to the execution of the decree was not occasioned by any fault or laches of his own, but either by the successful objection of a judgment-debtor or a third party which interrupted the execution proceedings, or by some obstacle interposed by the Court.

If we, in the present case, held the view that the decree-holder had been guilty of laches, we should not be prepared to come to his assistance; but, so far as we can see, the facts of the case all point the other way. Up to August, 1888, the decree-holder had been taking out execution proceedings with due diligence. On the 18th of December, 1888, he had obtained an order which granted, him all he required. As he left the Court that day lie was entitled to a feeling of assurance that proceedings would now go in due course to the Collector of the District, and that officer would take them up. We are satisfied that the order of the 23rd of December, 1889, was an interpolation, which never was communicated to either the decree-holder or his pleader. The fact that the order sheet closes with the order granting the decree-holder all lie asked and contains no mention of this subsequent order, and the further fact that the order of the 23rd of December, 1889, is an order which recites no author and no origin are to us clear evidence that it is the work of an execution clerk who found himself at the close of the year with a troublesome record of which he Wanted to get rid. We are satisfied that it was he, and not the decree-holder or judgment-debtor who started this obstacle, one wholly untenable, as we shall presently show, and who either with or without the Judge's knowledge got the Judge's initials attached to it, and hustled the record into the record-room. The decree-holder had got an order for sale, and no process fees were required to carry out that order any further. As for the objection that a copy of the decree was wanted, this was contrary to law. Notification No. 671 of the 30th of September, 1880, which has the force of law, provides that the Court shall send all the necessary papers. Rule VI expressly says that “the aforesaid documents shall be prepared and transmitted to the Collector free of all costs to the parties, the copies, etc., being prepared by the Court establishment.”

In support of his contention the learned vakil referred us first to the well known Full Bench Ruling Paras Ram…(Decree-Holder); v. Gardner…(Judgment-Debtor). . That was a case in which the interruption to the execution of the decree was caused by the illegal intervention of Debi Das, an outsider. But the principle underlying the decision was this, that the decree-holder's application which the Court was then considering was not a new or fresh act, but was in legal continuance of a previous application which was within time, i.e, the application of June, 1871. As Stuart, C.J, pointed out, the decree-holder's petition recited the whole previous procedure, and simply repeated the prayer for execution of the decree which had been made in June, 1871. The other Judge held similarly.

The case next cited, Raghubans Gir v. Sheosaran Gir Mr. Malaviya pointed out, was a case in which the interruption was due to an act of the Court. This is quite true, but here again what the learned Judges who decided the appeal appear to have considered mainly was that the application was primarily and essentially one made in conformance with the direction of the Court given in its previous order, dated 27th May, 1878, with the object of moving the Court to proceed in the matter of the former application which had been postponed. The case of Booboo Pyaroo Tuhobildarinee v. Syud Nazir Hossein was also a case in which the interruption caused had been the to the act of a third person. Execution proceedings had been struck upon a claim made by this third person, and it took the judgment-creditor all but three years to get this claim set aside. Still it was be set aside, and then the decree-holder returned to his original application. More than three years had intervened, but the Court was satisfied that his proceedings had been continuous, and that he was really acting upon his former application. The Bombay High Court reviewed these and other similar precedents in the case of Kalyanbhai Dipchand v. Ghanashamlal Jadunathji . The distinction now contended for was not mentioned in that precedent. All that was held was that an application made by a decree-holder after the removal of an obstacle which has for a time rendered execution impossible was merely an application for the continuation of former proceedings. Nothing is predicated as to the obstacle being only one raised by some person other than the decree-holder or by the Court.

The case of Basant Lal v. Batul Bibi goes a good deal further, but we need not consider that now; nothing is laid down in it as to the doctrine now contended for.

In the case of Baikanta Nath Mittra v. Aughore Nath Bose the Judges, following the precedent Chandra Prodhan v. Gopi Mohun Saha , which appeared to them to be in harmony with a long series of decisions both in the Calcutta and other High Courts, held that an application which the decree-holder expressly called a continuation of former proceedings might be held to be such an application, so far at least as regards the property which was mentioned in the former application. Here too the Judges do not seem to have considered the origin of the obstacle, but to have held generally that when execution proceedings are stayed by order of the Court a subsequent application to remove that order and proceed with the execution may be taken as a continuation of the former proceedings.

One of the most recent decisions on the point is that of Raghunath Sahay Singh v. Lalji Singh . In this most of the cases already mentioned were considered. But again there is nothing to show that the learned Judges who decided the case were influenced by the consideration as to whether the obstacle which had delayed execution proceedings was the act of some person other than the decree-holder.

This exhausts the cases to which we are referred. In the present case we have found above that there was no sleeping over his rights by the decree-holder. We are totally unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the was to blame. We are satisfied that the order striking off execution proceedings was one of which he never had notice. It was a proceeding purely for the convenience of the Court, if need it was not more than this, i.e, a forgery on the part of the execution clerk. So that now what we are about to hold is not intended to apply to cases in which it can be shown that the decree-holder acted dilatorily and thereby delayed proceedings. The circumstances under which execution proceedings are struck off will usually be questions of fact and must be determined upon the facts. Where a decree-holder has made an application within time and has obtained an order granting his request, and the completion of that order is suspended by some obstacle which the decree-holder has to remove before he can get satisfaction of his decree, and where, it may be after an interval of three years, having remove that obstacle, he returns to the Court and prays that, as in the present case, the order which he got years ago may now be carried to completion, his application is not a fresh application, but one praying the Court to revive the suspended order and permit it to be pushed through to completion.

We decree the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below, and return the proceedings to that Court with a view to their being carried out according to law.

The appellant will get his costs in all Courts.

Appeal decreed.

Thakur Prasad (Decree-Holder) v. Abdul Hasan And Another (Objectors).

Legal Opinion Summary — Thakur Prasad (execution / revival)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Decree-holder / Thakur Prasad)

Respondent's / Opposing Counsel's Arguments (Mr. Madan Mohan Malaviya)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Thakur Prasad (Decree-Holder) v. Abdul Hasan And Another (Objectors).

Comments