Shib Dat Vs Kalka Prasad

Spankie, J.@mdashIn my opinion the decree-holder was bound strictly by the terms of the decree. When the first default occurred, under the wording of the decree, he was bound to execute it in one lump. The instalment arrangement then ceased. If the decree-holder chose to continue to receive instalments, he did so at his own risk. When the acknowledgment of the balance due was made, it seems to me that the decree was already dead, and could no longer be executed. Though the cases cited Kristo Komal Singh v. Huree Sardar 13 W.R. F.B.44; and Hira Lal Mookerji v. Roy Dhampat Singh 24 W.R. 282 may not be strictly in point, the principle upon which they proceed applies to this case. I would decree the appeal and reverse the order of the Court below with costs.