PREM RAJ versus RAM CHARAN

PREM RAJ versus RAM CHARAN

The fifth execution application was barred by limitation as neither the actions taken in collateral proceedings nor the written statements filed by the appellant amounted to 'applications' or 'steps in aid of execution' within meaning of Article 182(5), Limitation Act, 1908; nor was a new starting point for limitation created under clauses 1, 2, or 4. The application was therefore out of time.

Parties
Appellant: Prem Raj; Respondent: Ram Charan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 March 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 3rd February 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Civil Misc. Second Appeal No. 124 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); fifth execution application held time-barred. (Note: Dissent by P. K. Goswami, J., would have allowed the appeal)
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Bar of Limitation, Application as Step in Aid of Execution
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Execution of Decrees Bar of Limitation Application as Step in Aid of Execution

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prem Raj

Appellant

Ram Charan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 3rd February 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Civil Misc. Second Appeal No. 124 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fifth application for execution was a 'step in aid of execution' within the meaning of Article 182(5) Limitation Act, 1908 and hence not barred by limitation
  2. 2 Whether clauses 1, 2, 4, or 5 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908 save limitation in the present facts
  3. 3 Whether the fifth execution application is a continuation/revival of the previous application

Ratio Decidendi

The fifth execution application was barred by limitation as neither the actions taken in collateral proceedings nor the written statements filed by the appellant amounted to 'applications' or 'steps in aid of execution' within meaning of Article 182(5), Limitation Act, 1908; nor was a new starting point for limitation created under clauses 1, 2, or 4. The application was therefore out of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); fifth execution application held time-barred. (Note: Dissent by P. K. Goswami, J., would have allowed the appeal)

Orders

  • Application for execution dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Each party to bear its own costs in this Court.