# PREM LATA A.~A~WAL v. LA.KSHMAN PRASAD GUPTA & ORS - **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 364 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1971 - **Bench:** ~. N. Ray, o .. DUA - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prem-lata-a-a-wal-v-la-kshman-prasad-gupta-ors-5047 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Lilnilatio11 Act (9 of 1908), s·. 1 15 a grand-uncle of Lala Bansilal filed a partition suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad. A preliminary decree was passed in the said partition suit on j4 February, 1927. An appeal was preferred and it was dismissed. An amicable settlement was arrived at in the partition · suit on 13 January, 1931 for partition 0€ the properties into five equal lots and allotment of the shares. Thereafter a Commissioner was appointed in the partition suit to go into accounts and prepare five lots. The branches inter se raised disputes as to liability for loans alleged against the joint family. The Commissioner prepared his report on 18 May, 1936. Final decree was passed on 13 January, 1939. An appeal was preferred against the said final decree in the partition suit to the High Court at Allahl!bad. The appeal was disposed on 6 December, 1949. The plaintiff Lakshman Prasad Gupta and six others filled suit No. 76 of 1937 in the Court of the First Subordi•1ate Judge at . Arrah in Bihar and obtained a decree on 20 J··iy; i938 for Rs. 18.540 and for costs Rs. 1,840/4 1- aggregating R. 20,380/4/-. This decree was against Banwarilal and other members of the joint family to which the appellant's father belonred The decree was transferred from Arrah to the Court of the Civil J dge at Allahabad where on 2 June, 194 l the decree-holder commenced execution proceedings marked as Execution Petition No. 38 of 1941. In that execution petition the decree-holder prayed for attachment and sale of Shri Krishna Desi Sugar Works at Jhusi known as the Jhusi Sugar Mills in the District of Allahabad which belonged to the joint family. The execution proceedings. were according to the decree-holders stayed under orders of the Allahabad High Court and after the stay order was vacated the execution proceedings were revived on 13 May, 1950. The Jhusi Sugar Mill was attached on 11 July. 1952 a.nd it was sold on 19 February, 1955. The sale was set aside on 31 May, 1955 pursuant to objections of the judgmentdebtors that the Jhusi Sugar Mill could not be sold because of the provisions of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. It may be stated here that some time in the month of September, 1935 c I> E: F G A B c D E F G H I'. L. AGARWAL v. L. P. GUPTA (Ray, J.) 367 Baijnath Prnsad filed an application before the Collector of Allahabad for protection and relief under the U .P. Encumbered Estates Act o~ 1934 and it was registered as Encumbered Estates Suit No. 25 of 1935. Thereafter the decree-holders o.n 17 March, 1956 made an application in the Arrah Court for transfer of the decree. On 6 June, 1956, the Subordinate Judge at Arrah transferred the decree to the Madras High Court. On 13 August, 1956 the decree-holders filed in the Madras High Court an application for attaching the properties of the joint family. This application in the Madras High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal. The matter was heard first by the Master of the High Court C•f Madras who held that the application for execution was barred by .. · limitation. Ari appeal from the decision of the Master was heard by the learned Single Judge o( the Madras High Court who held that the applica.tion was not within the ri1ischief of bar of limitation. Thereafter Letters Patent Appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The appeal is from the Bench decision upholding the judgment of the le.arned Single Judge. Before the Master of the M~dras High Court the contention on behalf of the judgment debtors was that the decree was passed on 20 July, 1938 and therefore the execution petition filed on 13 August, 1956 was barred by limitation. The decree holders on the other hand contended that the executio,n of the decree which commenced on 2 June 1941 before the Civil Judge at Al!ahabad was stayed till the end'of 1949 and was revived on.13 May, 1950 and finally disposed on 31 May, 1955, and. therefore, the. execution petition filed on 13 August, 1956 was within time .. The Master held that .the decree holders had failed to prove as to from what point ct time the execution of the decree was stayed pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court and also the time when the stay was vacated. The application for execution was therefore found by the Master of the Madras High Court to be barred by limitation. · The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court referred to the revival of execution proceedings before the Civil Judge at Allahabad on 13 May, 1950 and also the finding of the Civil Judge at Allahabad who in passing the final order on 31 May, 1955 setting aside the sale of the Jhusi Sugar Mill stated that the execution proceedings were stayed by orders cfc the High Court .at Allahabad. The Civil Judge at Allahabad. set aside the sale because of the mandatory provisions cf sections 7(2) and 9(5) of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The Madras High Court placed reliance on Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-3A on the question of stay of execution proceeding>. It may also be 'tated here that the judgment 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] IS.CR debtor did not dispute the translation of those Exhibits P-3 and A P-3A. The Exhibits set out the ord.~rs of the Civil Judge at Allahabad. Exhibit P.-2 is the judgment dated 31 May, 1955 passed by the Civil Judge setting aside the sale of the Jhusi Sugar Mill. Exhibits P-3 and P.-3A comprise the orders passed by the Civil Judge. The three relevant orders in Exhibits P-3 and P-:1.'\ are dated 18 August, 1941, 23 August, 1941and30 Au)!ust. 1941 8 in the said execution proceedings. The order dated 18 August, I 941 was to the effect that the receiver:; were to be informed about the execution proceedings and their objections, if any. The receivers were the receivers i71 the partition suit No. 4 of 1926. The said order further recited that the orders of the High Court at Allahabad in the partition suit were C also received in the executing court. The order dated 23 August, i 941 recited that the execution application of the decree holder was presented in the__presence of the lawyers of the decree holder and the receivers. Further, the order was that the request for permission should be submitted in suit No. 4 of 1926 namely, the partition suit of the defendants judgment debtors. The ord~r D dated 30 August, 1941 recorded by the Civil Judge at Allahab:\1:1 was inter alia as follows :-- ''The proceedings remain stopped on account of the i'njunction of the High Court. Hence it was ordered that receivers should be in.'ormed accordingly. Further steps will be taken after getting permission". E These orders are relied on hy the decree holder to substantiate the case of stay of execution proceedings. The contention which was advanced before the Madras Hi~h Court and repeated in this Court was that there was no absolLtk stay of the ex.~cution of the decree. It was amplified to mean that the execution proceedings before the Civil Judge at Allahabad related only to one property and therefore the decree holders would not be entitled to claim benefit of exclusion of time by reason of partial stay of execution proce.~dings at Allahabad. The Madras . High Court rightly found that there was no evidence that the judgment debtors were possessed of other properties in Allahabad where the decree was being executed. The Madras High Court rightly held that the decree hoJd.~rs were restrained by injuncti portion of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court'that this would fortify the construction that there was stay of execution of the decree. In the present case, the effect of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court was 1·ecorded by the Civil Judge, A!Jahabad in h_is judgment dated 31 May,. 1955 to amount to stay of execution proceedings. The order of the Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 30 August, 1941 was that "proceedings remain stopped on account o' the injunction ordet issued by the High Copell out any order of paFtial stay in the facts and circumstances of the present case as was contended by counsel for the appellant. The order is on the contrary to the effect that there was an absolute stay of execution proceedings. It is, therefore, manifest that the execution proceedings before the Civil Judge at Allahabad \'(ere stayed and the decree holder was rightly found by the Madras High Court to the benefit cf exclusion of time during which the execution was stayed. Though the judgment debtors did not question before · the Master of the Madras High Court the bonafides of the decree holder in procecuting the execution proceedings, that conte,ntion was advanced before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court hekf that the decree holders commenced execution proceedings for sale of the Jhusi Sugar Mill for realisation of the decretal amount but !he attempt of the decree holder failed because of the objections of the judgment-debtors under the provi~io,ns of the U.P. Encumbered Esta!es Act. The sale was set aside bv reason of the mandatory i;rovmons of the statute. The learned Sine le Judv, of th:' ~ 'adrns High Court rightly held that the decree holdf~'.: pfo~;:cuted the exe- .l 7 () SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] I S.C.R. cution case in good faith and with due diligence and were entitled to protection under section 14 of the Limitation Act. 9efore the Divisio.n Bench of the Madras High Court no argument was advanc~d tGuching the bonafides or good faith with which the execution prcceedings were carried on. Counsel for the appel· !ant repeated the contention that the decree holders were guilty of lack of good faith and diligence. It is not open to the judgment debtors to adva,nce that contention having abandoned the same before the Division Bench of the Madras' High Court. We are furthermore of opinion that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on that point is 'correct. The other question which arise before the Madras High Court was whether section 15 of the Limitation Act, I 908 would npply to limitation prescribed in statutes other than the Limitation Act. Section 48 of the Code o.' Civil Procedur.e until its amendment on the passing of the Limitation Act, 1963 enacted that the decrees of the Civil Courts were to be executed within 12 years and not after that. The present case i; governed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it sto:id prior to the deletion of that section along with the passing of the Limitation Act, 1963. In section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1908..it is e,nacted that in computing the period of limitation pm;cribed for any suit or application .for a decree execution of which has been stayed by injunction, the time of the continuance of the injunction shall be excluded. In the Madras High Court it was argued that the word 'prescribed' occurring in ~ection 15 of the Limitation Act could apply only to cases of limitation prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 with the result that the benefit of exclusion of time by reason of operation of stay could not be availed o.~ in cases of limitation prescribed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Madras High Court relied on the decision in Kandaswami Pillai v. Kannappa Chetty(') which held that the expression 'prescribed' in section 15 ( i) of the Limitation Act would apply not only to limitation prescribed in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act but also to limitation prescribed in general statutes like the Code of Civil Procedure. That is the correct statement of law ~nd counsel for · the appellant did not advance any contention to the contrary. It may, however, be stated that the effect of section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not to supersede the law of limitation with regard to execution cf decrees. The Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation for execution of decrees. Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealt wjth the maximum limit of time provided for executi~n. butjt did not prescribe the period within (I) (1951) 2 M.L.J. 668 B c D E \ F G I I ' ~ ·, I'. L. AGARWAL v. L. P. GUPTA (Ruy, J.) 3 71 A which each application for execution was to be made. An application for execution was to be made within three years from any of the dates mentioned in the third column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. An application for execution of a decree would first have to satisfy Article 182 and it would also have to be found out as to whether section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure operat11 ed as a further bar. ·- In the pre>ent case, there was stay of execution proceedings. 8n 13 May, 1950 the execution proceedings were revive::!. The judgment debtors did not challenge the order dated 13 May, 1950. The judgment debtors impeached the sale only on a ground covered by the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. The judgment debtor further in impeaching the sale of Jhusi Sugar Mill did not advance before the Civil Judge at Allahabad any contention that any o~ the orders of the Civil Judge at Allahabad reviving the execution proceedings, attaching the Jhusi Sugar Mill and directing the sale of the Sugar Mil! was barred by limitation. The principle of res judicata applies to execution procedings. The judgment .D debtors in the present case did not raise any objection as to limitation in regard to execution of the decree before the Civil Judge at Allahabad. On the contrary the judgment debtors asked for setting aside the sale on the basis of revival of execution proceedings. The revival of execution was not cha!lenged and the judgE F II ment debtors are thereby barred by the principle of res judicata from questioning directly or indirectly the order dated 13 May, 1950 reviving the execution proceedings. When the appellant made the application for special leave, the appellant referred to an affidavit affirmed by the appellant's father 10 12 February, 1957 in the execution proceedings in the Madras High Court. The copy of the said affidavit annexed to the petition for special leave in this Court is in seven paragraphs. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit it is alleged that the decree is against 5 branches and the plaintiff Lakshman Prasad in collusion with the other branches excluded the other four bra,nches and chose to proceed only against the appellant's branch though the other four branches were possessed of vast properties. The further allegations in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit are that the object of the plaintiff is· to harass only one branch and the application is not bonafide. The plaintiff respo:ndent in answer to the petition for special le~se affirmed an affidavit in this Court that paragraph 6 in the sa'd affidavit was an interpolation and was not at all in existence in the affidavit tiled in the Madras High Court. The plaintiff respondent obtained a photostat copy of the said affidavit filled in the Madras High Court. The photostat copy established that paragraph 6 was not there and farther that the affidavit wa> affirmed at Allahabad on 12 February, 1957 and not at Madras. Furthermore, the / ,. SU Ph J:"M E .Ct)URT RFPORTS ._' [197 I J I S.C..R. allida,·it was explained· to· the deponent Baijnath Prasad· as will appear from the pho10,1a1·copy execut(on pwcccdings bcl'OLe the Civil Judge at Allahabad,. The ,decree holc)er was :11:owed hl proceed with ·the execution proc•~edings ·and the Madras Higb Court. rc1nittcd the 1natter to the Muster to consider the questions indicated in the judgn!Cht and theju9gment debtors were allowcc to raise objections to the cxeeutabilityl;;'r the decree apart from tnat of li111itation as injicatcd in the judg111ec.t or the learned Single Judg..:. V·/i:. are of opinion thnt the M-adras High ('ocrt is rig.ht in holding that th" decree holder is entitled to :he b·~nctii of cxclusit'n of time' during \vhich the execution prot:ecnctents. Y.P. · ' The !l c D F