Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure-F) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit-115 in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 and order dated 15th December, 2010 (Annexure-H) passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath, below Exhibit-1 in Regular Darkhast No. 44 of 2004 thereby dismissing the Execution Petition on the point of limitation. It is further prayed that, Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 may be restored to its original position.

It is further case of the petitioner that, on 16th July, 2005 in view of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner/decree holder deposited deficit 6 wp1360.12 court fees of Rs.332/- before the lower Court vide Application (Exhibit-25) in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 16th August, 2005 after hearing both the sides, the High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal. On 22nd August, 2005 Civil Application (Review Petition) No. 10028 of 2005 came to be filed by the respondents in the abovesaid second appeal alongwith separate Civil Application No. 2593 of 2009 for bringing on record certain documents and Civil Application No. 10554 of 2005 for stay. On 6th March, 2009 after hearing both the sides, High Court was pleased to dismiss the civil application for review alongwith other two civil applications. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 18th December, 2009 the petitioner herein, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 65 of 2009 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1988 for directions to the Court office to take note of the deposit of deficit court fees made by 7 wp1360.12 the petitioner in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 18th October, 2010 the respondent No.2 Kailash filed application (Exhibit-115) in Regular Darkhast NO. 55 of 2004 for rejecting the Execution Petition on the point of limitation. The petitioner herein, filed his say to the said application. On 15th December, 2010 said application came to be rejected by holding that, the decree holder has not filed execution petition within limitation and that doctrine of merger 8 wp1360.12 would not be applicable in the present case. On 15th December, 2010 in view of the aforesaid order, the Executing Court vide its impugned order below Exhibit-1 in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004, dismissed the Execution Petition by observing that, the Execution Petition would not survive in view of the order below Exhibit-115, as the Execution Petition is filed beyond the period of limitation of 12 years. Hence, this writ petition.

18 wp1360.12

14. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders below Exhibit-115 and below Exhibit-1 in Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parali Vaijinath on 15th December, 2010 are quashed and set aside. Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004 is restored to its original file.