CHANDI PRASAD AND ORS. versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.

CHANDI PRASAD AND ORS. versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.

Once an appellate decree is passed, irrespective of whether the decree is original or appellate, the doctrine of merger applies and the date of the decree or subsequent order is to be considered the starting point of limitation under Article 136 of Limitation Act. The decree becomes enforceable from the date of final appellate decree.

Parties
Appellant: Chandi Prasad and Ors.; Respondent: Jagdish Prasad and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 30.3.2001 of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 8954 of 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Merger, Execution of Decree, Limitation for Execution of Decree, Meaning of Decree
Limitation Civil Procedure Doctrine of Merger Execution of Decree Limitation for Execution of Decree Meaning of Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandi Prasad and Ors.

Appellant

Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 30.3.2001 of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 8954 of 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
  2. 2 Does the doctrine of merger apply to appellate decrees for the purpose of limitation?

Ratio Decidendi

Once an appellate decree is passed, irrespective of whether the decree is original or appellate, the doctrine of merger applies and the date of the decree or subsequent order is to be considered the starting point of limitation under Article 136 of Limitation Act. The decree becomes enforceable from the date of final appellate decree.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No case for interference with impugned judgment; appeal accordingly dismissed; no costs