AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 118 words
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Acting C.J.
1.
We are of opinion that the application for time, which was made by the appellant after he had given the darkhast of November 1906, to enable him to procure copies of the decree and judgment, was a step-in-aid of execution. We agree with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kunhi Mannan v. Seshagiri Bhakthan ILR (1882) Mad. 141 and dissent from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Kartick Nath Pandey v. Juggernath Ram Marwari ILR (1899) Mad. 285.
2.
The decree is, therefore, reversed and the darkhast sent back to be disposed of according to law on the merits. Costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the darkhast.