AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wallis, J.—It is admitted by therespondent that the District Judge''s order cannot be supported on the ground that the second period during
which the estate was under the management of the Court of Wards should be excluded. During this period of management decrees were not
transferred to, the collector for execution and the provisions of the Court of Wards Act and the CPC under which time is to be excluded in that
case do not apply.
It has however been sought to exclude the operation of the 12 years rule u/s 48, Civil Procedure Code, on other grounds. The decree in the
present case was dated the 2nd May 1890. Though a mortgage decree it does not follow the form prescribed by Section 89 of the Transfer of
Property Act, but gives the plaintiff a personal decree for the whole amount and not merely for the balance that might be found due after the sale of
the mortgaged properties. Accordingly properties of the Judgment-debtor not included in the mortgage were attached and ordered to be sold
before the mortgaged properties were brought to sale and it is too late now to dispute the propriety of this order. It is clear therefore that under the
terms of the decree limitation began to run u/s 48(a) from the date of the decree 2nd May, 1890 or at latest u/s 48(b) from the 2nd of November
1890 after which date the mortgaged property was made liable to be sold. A period of 6 years and 7 months has admittedly to be excluded in
respect of the period during which the decree had been transferred to the Collector under the Court of Wards Act, and the respondent seeks to
exclude a further period, the further period from 17th August 1907 to the 15th January 1911 during which the estate was under the management of
the Court of Wards without any transfer of decrees to the Collector for execution as, a, period during which in the language of Section 14 of the
limitation Act 1908 he was prosecuting with due deligence another civil proceeding for the same relief where such proceeding is prosecuted in
good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause ''pf a like nature is unable to entertain it. It is not shown that the respondent
did anything to prosecute the execution of his decree before any court during the second period of ""management. If he had applied to the collector
to execute it he would at once have been informed that the collector had no jurisdiction as the decree had not been sent to him: for execution. I do
not think any case is made on the facts for the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether
the time as limited by Section 48 of the CPC for the '' execution of a decree can be extendedjjy virtue of the general provisions of the Limitation
Act.
Finally it is said that E.P. No. 139 of 1905 which sought for the sale of properties not included in the mortgage was within time, and we are
asked to treat the present petition of 1910 which seeks for the sals of other properties as part of the petition of 1905. Two decisions in Sevugam
Chetty v. Krishna Aiyangar (1911) 22 M.L.J. 189 and Varadiah v. Raja Kumara Venkata perumal (1911) 26 M.L.J.83 have been referred to. In
the first of these cases the plaintiff sued an agent to recover his account books which were detained by the agent and stated in his plaint that he
would bring another suit for the money due by the agent. The Court allowed the plaint to be amended after the money claimed had become barred
so as, to claim the money also under Order VI, Rule 17 of the present Code which allows the court at any stage to amend the pleadings in such
manner as may be just. With great respect it does not seem to me to be just to allow a plaintiff by amending his pleadings to revive a barred claim.
Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B. D 394 .
In the second case the decree holder was allowed to amend a petition which asked for the sale of non-mortgaged properties before the sale of
the mortgaged properties first and bring the petition in accordance with law. The amendment it is stated in the judgment was allowed to enable ''the
decree-holder to save the bar of the twelve years rule. In the present case we are asked to treat E.P. No. 52 of 1910 which prays for the
attachment and sale of the defendant''s interest in a certain taluq as a continuation of E.P. No. 139 of 1905 in which he sought for sale of the
defendants interest in two other taluks. Execution Petition 139 of 1904 is said to have been pending when E.P. No. 52 of 1910. was filed. I do not
think it would be right to treat E.P. No. 52 of 1910 as an amendment or a continuation of E.P. No. 139 of 1905 so as to deprive the respondent
of the defence of limitation which was open to him against any fresh application claiming this relief. To do so would in my opinion contravene the
settled rule of practice laid down by Lord Esher M.R. in Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394. that amendments are not admissible when they
prejudice, the rights of the opposite party as existing at the date of such amendments. Under very peculiar circumstances Lord Esher says the
Court might perhaps have power to allow such amendment, but I do not think there is any case for doing so here.
The appeals are allowed with costs throughout.
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
I am also of the same opinion as my learned brother. Following The Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. Rajah Kumara Venkata Perumal Raj Bahadur Varu,
Minor by guardian Mr. W.A. Vardachariar and Another, . I am of opinion that the decree in this case contained both a direction for sale as well as
a personal decree and the validity of such a decree, though it is irregular in form according to the Transfer of Property Act, cannot be called in
question in execution. The right to attach and bring to sale the properties of the judgment-debtor other than the mortgaged properties arose
therefore on 3rd November 1890.
Following the observations in Phoolas Koonwar v. Lalla Jogeshwat Sahoy ILR (1876) C. 226 the observations in Navalchand Nemchand v.
Amichand Talakchand ILR (1893) B. 731 and Moro Sadashiva v. Visaji Ragunath ILR (1891) B. 536 I am inclined to hold that the CPC is not, a
Special Statute,"" but it is a general law of procedure usually passed in the same year as the Limitation Act, and that the sections of the Limitation
Act relating to exclusion of time and obtaining the benefit of the time spent in certain necessary acts other and similar provisions govern also the 12
years period of limitation provided for in Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code.
With the greatest respect, I find myself unable to agree with some of the observations contra in the case in Rabala Ramana Reddi v. Rabala
Babu Reddi (1912) 24 M.L.J. 96.
In the present case, the right to proceed against the properties other than the mortgaged properties arose on 3rd November 1890 and deducting
for the 6 years and 7 months during which the Court of Wards was in the management under the special provisions of the Court of Wards Act and
deducting the 8 months and 12 days during which, according to my view the decree-holder was prohibited by an injunction from conducting
execution proceedings the 12 years expired on or about 15-1-10 and the present execution petition No. 83 of 1910 filed on 18-7-1910 is
therefore barred by limitation.
Next, there is the contention that this petition of 1910 might be treated as a petition to amend the old petition of 1905 and that such an
amendment ought to be granted. I am inclined to give the Courts full power to amend the pleadings at any stage (having regard to Section 153 of
the new code) so as to advance substantial justice without much regard to the Consideration whether the judgment-debtor or the defendant may
not be prejudiced in his right to raise technical pleas. In T. Varadiah Vs. Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja Bahadur Varu, myself and Spencer
J. allowed such an amendment under the circumstances of that case. Mr. L.A. Govindaragava Aiyar quoted against this case in 26 M.L.J. 83, a
Judgment of mine as a single judge, in which I expressed an opinion (following cases decided before the new code came into force) that the
amendment of an execution petitten could not be allowed after it had once been filed. In that earlier case Section 153 of the new CPC was not
brought to my notice and as at present advised, I am inclined to give the fullest powers allowing amendments to courts, though, of course the
courts must also possess a discretion not to allow such amendments under particular circumstances.
In the present case, I agree with my learned brother that the court''s discretion to allow the amendment of the petition of 1905 should not be
exercised in 1914 in favour of the decree-holder as he has been guilty of much negligence in not putting in this petition before July 1910.