Kashmiri Mal and others vs Sukh Dial

The terminus a quo of the prescribed period of three years of limitation under Article 180 under paragraph 2 of column 2 ibid is the date of the final

decree of the appellate court. In this case on 4 Hr 1978 the claim was decreed ex parte against the appellants and on merits against Sukhdial.

Sukh Dial appealed and on 1st Magh 1978 he was discharged from liability. It is from this date the Judgmentdebtor wishes the limitation run. The

plaintiff filed a second appeal to which the present appellants were no parties and that appeal was dismissed on 8th Baisakh 1986. It is from this

date that the decreeholder wishes the time to run in connection with his present application to execute the decree against the appellants.

The language of the statue is clear and in our opinion it should be given effect to in its ordinary meaning without qualifying it by the introduction of

words which nowhere occur in the statute We are well aware of the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported as I.L.R. 13

Allahabad 1. As has been observed by other High Courts, e.g. by Chatterjee Justice in 32 P.R. 1907. I.L.R. 25 Cal. 594 (F.B.) by Macledan

C.J. in I.L.R. 26 Madras 91 (F.B.) by Sir Arnold White, C.J., the judgment of the dissenting Judges appears to be more sound.

We are of the opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken correct view in holding that the limitation runs from the date of the seconds

appellate decree which is final decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.