Home › MCQs › Criminal Procedure Code › Question #9475
Back to Questions
Criminal Procedure Code QUESTION #9475
Question 1
A decree was passed on 15 January 2010. The decree-holder made no application for execution until 15 January 2016. The judgment-debtor raises the bar of limitation. The decree-holder claims he was fraudulently prevented by the judgment-debtor from executing the decree from January 2010 to December 2015. Which legal principle resolves this dispute?
  • The decree-holder can still execute if he proves that the judgment-debtor, by fraud or force, prevented execution within the six years immediately before the application✔️
  • The decree becomes a nullity after three years of non-execution
  • The Court has inherent power to condone the delay regardless of the circumstances
  • The decree is absolutely barred; no exception exists after six years
Correct Answer Explanation
Section 48(2) CPC creates an exception: where the judgment-debtor has by fraud or force prevented the execution of the decree at some time within six years immediately before the date of the application, the Court may allow execution. The decree-holder must prove the fraudulent prevention occurred within the relevant six-year window.