Perichchiappa Chetty vs Jacolyn – clr volume 3 page 091_2

In the case between Perichchiappa Chetty (decree holder) and Jacolyn (judgment-debtor), the court addressed the issue of whether Section 347 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires notice to the judgment-debtor when more than a year has elapsed between a decree and an application for its execution, applies to decrees payable by instalments. The court held that Section 347 is imperative in such circumstances and that execution petitions must be served on the judgment-debtor, regardless of whether the decree is for payment by instalments. The principle reaffirmed is that procedural safeguards concerning service of notice apply equally to instalment decrees, even when Section 194 provides that default in any instalment renders the entire sum due immediately. This decision emphasized adher