The Calcutta Weekly Notes February 5 1945

The decision in that case was that the “ suit ” referred to in the pioviso is either a suit to which the Act applies and in connection with which relief is claimed by the borrower or a suit brought by the borrower under the sub-section itself. [...] XLIX proceeding for the' re-opening of the decree the Subordinate Judge refused the prayer on the ground that the'mortgage bond had been execued more than twelve years before the commencment of the execution proceeding which he took to be the suit." Apparently the decree could not be re-opened to any useful purpose unless the mortgage bond was also re-opened. [...] Their Lordships held that the mortgage suit itself and not the execution proceeding was the " suit " and "as the mortgage bond of 1925 was within 12 years from the date of the mortgage suit " the decree might be re-opened. [...] This case is distinguished on the ground that the trial Court was directed only to re-open the decree and that as regards the bond of 1925 the re-opening of it was left to be considered by the lower Court in taking account between the parties. [...] The definition simply means that a suit does not terminate with the decree but extends up to the termination of the execution proceeding that is to say the execution proceedings are a contnuation of the suit the same suit in which the decree was passed not' that those proceedings are by themselves a suit anti a different suit.