Kanji Dhermsi and Company v Rajsi (Civil Case No. 242 of 1921) [1927] EACA 6 (1 January 1927)

## ORGINAL CIVIL.

Before SHERIDAN, J.

## KANJI DHERMSI AND HEMRAJ KESHA VJI *trading as* KANJI DHERMSI AND COM;PANY

## *v.*

## SHAH L UKFfAMSI RAJSI. c.c. 242/1921.

- Indian Limitation Act, 1877, Arti<:!le 179-period of limitation **for** execution of a decree or·order of any Civil Court-not provided for by Article 180. - Held:-That as the Supreme Court of this Colony and Protectorate . is n?t a Court established by Royal Charter, Article 179, is applicable.

Jt;D(, ,IE~T (dated 7-2-27).-It hus been suggested on behalf of the judgment-creditor that Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to this case. Counsel in makii;ig the suggestion has at, the same time fairly put before me a Judgment of Barth; C. J., in the case of Anderson v. Thakur Dass and another-Supreme Court 202/1920-in which it was held that the Supreme Court of t,his Colony arid Protectorate is not a Court established by Royal Charter. I see no reason for disagreeing with this dictum. Article 179 is to my mind the Article applicable. On the 15th December, ·1921, the parties appeared before Pickering, J., in Execution Proceedings, when an Order was passed that the debtor should pay Rs. 50 (Sh. 100) on the 15th day of each month and that a committal Order should issue on there being default. Liberty to apply was granted. The last payment is averred to have been made in July, 1922, and it is admitted that no application was made to this Court by the judgment-creditor between July, -1922 and 30th November, 1926. On these facts I am of opinion that the application .for Exe·cution of the Decree in respect of the balance is barred by Article 179 *(vide* the case· of *Keshiram v. Pandu.* I. L. R. 27, Born. 1. at the bottom of p. 9). The application is dismissed with costs.