Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Shanti Devi vs . Rajashtan State Cooperative Tribunal ... on 20 November, 2014
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Rajashtan State Cooperative Tribunal Jaipur & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.133/2009) Date of Order: November 20, 2014. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Amit Jindal, for the petitioner. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, on behalf of respondents. BY THE COURT:
Shorn of varied arguments this petition fundamentally seeks compliance with the order dated 27-8-1999 passed by the Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter `the Tribunal').
At the outset, Mr. Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3&4 Subhash Sindhi Housing Cooperative Society (hereinafter `the Society'), states that a final judgment of the Tribunal is executable under Section 100 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter `the 2001 Act'). It is submitted that it is well settled that writ jurisdiction ought not to be invoked where an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. To buttress the aforesaid settled position, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory [(2012)8 SCC 524].
Heard. Considered.
It is indeed true that an order of the Tribunal is executable under Section 100 of the 2001 Act. I do not find any extraordinary circumstance to bypass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner for enforcement/ execution of the final judgment dated 27-8-1999.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted in the event the petitioner is being relegated for execution of the judgment of the Tribunal, it be clarified that the issue of limitation would not have relevance to consideration of the matter on merits and the application for execution of the judgment passed by the Tribunal would be decided expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Bansal has no objection to the executing court being directed to eschew issues of limitation and condone delay, if warranted, in filing the execution application qua judgment dated 27-8-1999. Even otherwise the Lahore High Court in the case of Kala Singh Vs. Gehna Singh [AIR 1932 Lahore 531] and the Patna High Court in the case of Bhishundeo Narain Missir Vs. Raghunath Prasad Missir [AIR 1940 Patna 677], have held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would attract to the delayed filing of execution applications. Consequently, in my considered opinion, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke exclusion of the period from 18-12-2008 when this petition was filed before this court till today, while computing the delay in filing execution application, if the occasion so arises.
The writ petition disposed of accordingly.
It is however directed that as the matter pertains to 1999, the execution application be decided within a period of six months from the date of filing the same.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.