High CourtsDivision Bench(1877) 06 CAL CK 0002

Kally Prosonno Hazra vs Heera Lal Mundle

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 21 June 1877 · Citation: (1877) ILR (Cal) 468

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prinsep, J · Markby, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 378 words

Markby, J.—In this case, whilst execution proceedings were going on, the judgment-debtor filed a petition in Court notifying payment of a part of the sum due under the decree, and asking for a stay of execution for four months. The judgment-creditor signified his assent to this application by signing the petition, which was granted. The question we have to determine on special appeal is, whether a new period of limitation runs either from the date of this petition under the provisions of Section 20 or from the date of the part-payment under the provisions of Section 21, Act IX of 1871. Both these sections are applicable to ''debts and legacies'' only, and I do not think that the sum due under a decree is a ''debt'' within the meaning of these two sections. It seems to me that the proviso to Section 21, which is general, would be unmeaning as applied to sums due under a decree; and the proviso to Article 169, Schedule II would also have been wholly useless if part-payment of money due under a decree had been already provided for u/s 21. Both these arguments, it is true, apply only to Section 21. But I cannot suppose that the word ''debt'' is used in a different sense in two consecutive sections of the Act. I do not of course mean to say that the sum due under a decree may not sometimes be properly called a ''debt;'' it is constantly spoken of as a judgment-debt; but taking the whole Act together, I think the ''debt'' spoken of in Sections 20 and 21 is a liability to pay money for which a suit could be brought, and not for which judgment has been obtained. The Miscellaneous Special Appeal will he dismissed with costs.

Prinsep, J.

2.

I am of the same opinion. I would only add that the fact that it has been thought necessary to make a special proviso in Article 169 Schedule ii of the Limitation Act, seems to show that the ordinary law was not sufficient in this respect as regards decrees or orders of a High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. There is no such special provision for other decrees or orders. We cannot apply Section 20 or 21.