[1928] EACA 21
The court held that Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 governs the limitation period for execution of decrees by the Supreme Court of the Colony and Protectorate, as it is not a court established by Royal Charter. Since no application for execution was made between July 1922 and 30th November 1926, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1928] EACA 21
- Parties
- Applicant: Kanji Dhermsi and Hemraj Keshavji trading as Kanji Dhermsi and Company; Respondent: Shah Lukhamsi Rajsi
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- C.C. 242/1921.
- Procedural Posture
- Execution Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed as time-barred
- Judges
- Sheridan, J
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Execution of Decrees, Application of Limitation Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kanji Dhermsi and Hemraj Keshavji trading as Kanji Dhermsi and Company
Applicant
Shah Lukhamsi Rajsi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Execution Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Article 179 or Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 applies to execution of a decree by the Supreme Court of the Colony and Protectorate.
- 2 Whether the application for execution of the decree is time-barred under the applicable limitation provision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 governs the limitation period for execution of decrees by the Supreme Court of the Colony and Protectorate, as it is not a court established by Royal Charter. Since no application for execution was made between July 1922 and 30th November 1926, the application was filed outside the prescribed limitation period. The court found no reason to depart from the established precedent and dismissed the application as time-barred under Article 179.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as time-barred
Orders
- The application for execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
## ORGINAL CIVIL.
Before SHERIDAN, J.
## KANJI DHERMSI AND HEMRAJ KESHAVJI trading as KANJI DHERMSI AND COMPANY
## $\pmb{v}.$
## SHAH LUKHAMSI RAJSI. C. C. $242/1921$ .
- Indian Limitation Act, 1877, Article 179-period of limitation for execution of a decree or order of any Civil Court not provided for by Article 180. - **Held:**—That as the Supreme Court of this Colony and Protectorate<br>is not a Court established by Royal Charter, Article 179, is applicable.
JUDG $4$ ENT (dated 7-2-27).—It has been suggested on behalf of the judgment-creditor that Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to this case. Counsel in making the suggestion has at the same time fairly put before me a Judgment of Barth, C. J., in the case of Anderson v. Thakur Dass and another—Supreme Court 202/1920-in which it was held that the Supreme Court of this Colony and Protectorate is not a Court established by Royal I see no reason for disagreeing with this dictum. Charter. Article 179 is to my mind the Article applicable. On the 15th December, 1921, the parties appeared before Pickering, J., in Execution Proceedings, when an Order was passed that the debtor should pay Rs. 50 (Sh. 100) on the 15th day of each month and that a committal Order should issue on there being default. Liberty to apply was granted. The last payment is averred to have been made in July, 1922, and it is admitted that no application was made to this Court by the judgment-creditor between July. 1922 and 30th November, 1926. On these facts I am of opinion that the application for Execution of the Decree in respect of the balance is barred by Article 179 (vide the case of Keshiram v. Pandu. I. L. R. 27, Bom. 1. at the bottom of p. 9). The application is dismissed with costs.