Ambika Prasad vs Gaya Loan Office, Ltd.

Coutts, J.—The facts of the case as found by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge are that the decree-holder obtained a money decree in 1910. Certain applications for execution were made and the last step-in-aid of execution was taken on 14-5-1918. On 27-7-1918 a sum of Rs. 5 was paid towards the principal and the present application was filed on 27-7-1921. The judgment-debtor objected that the application was barred by limitation bat the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has found that limitation is saved by the payment of Rs. 5 on 27-7-1918. I am unable to understand how he arrived at this conclusion. Limitation is not saved under S. 20 of the Limitation Act because the fact of the payment does not appear in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor. No step-in-aid of execution has been taken since 14-5-1918; consequently, the present application is clearly barred. The decision of the learned Addl. Sub. Judge must be set aside and the application for execution must be dismissed. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.