Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The applicants/decree holders filed an execution application, being Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1984, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jat for execution of the said decree. The learned executing Court, by the order dated 23rd April 1984 directed that papers be sent to the Collector, Sangli for partition of the suit lands in pursuance of the decree. In spite of the said order, no action was taken by the office of the Court of the Civil Judge, Jat for sending necessary papers to the Collector, Sangli. Ultimately, by the fresh order dated 12th August 1986, the executing Court redirected its office to send papers to the Collector, Sangli for effecting partition as per decree.

6. The applicants/decree holders, for the first time, came to know of the above order of disposal of execution application some time in the month of December 1995/January 1996. The applicants after receipt of certified copy of the order, preferred Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 1997 on 6th March 1996. for restoration of Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1984 which, ultimately, came to be dismissed by an order dated 31st March 1998 inter alia holding that it was barred by limitation.

7. On 9th April 1998, second Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1998 was preferred by the applicants for execution of decree obtained on 27-th November 1981. The executing Court, by its order dated 5th May, 2000, dismissed second Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1998 inter alia holding that the said Darkhast was also barred by law of limitation as prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 and also held that execution application was hit by the principles of res-judicata.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicants/decree holders invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of C. P. C. to challenge the above order dated 5th May 2000, passed in Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1998, on the ground that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and complete non-application of mind on the part of the executing Court.

THE ARGUMENTS

9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the executing Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Limitation Act and erroneously held that second Regular Darkhast No. 12 of 1998 was barred by period of limitation and hit by the principles analogues to res judicata. He further contended that the executing Court ignored that until actual partition is effected by the revenue authoriies, as per the directions contained in the decree, it does not attain the character of a executable final decree and therefore, Article 136 of the Limitation Act does not get attracted. In his submission, the said provision shall apply from the date of culmination of preliminary decree into an executable final decree for partition and separate possession. He contended that the impugned order passed by the executing Court not only suffers from non-application of mind but also suffers from material illegality and irregularity and went on to submit that the executing Court has illegally exercised its jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing execution application. He, in the aforesaid backdrop, urged that the impunged order, if allowed to stand, shall cause irreparable injury to the applicants/decree holders against whom it was made. He therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and also prayed for remand with direction for expeditious disposal of the execution proceeding in accordance with law considering the advanced age of the decree in question.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM THE ABOVE CASES TO THIS CASE Issue No. I :

22. Turning to the facts of the case in hand as already noticed in the opening part of this judgment that the decree in question for partition and separate possession of the movable and immovable properties Inter alia including the agricultural lands could not be sent to Collector till. 12th August 1986 and thereafter the DILR had returned all the papers under his letter dated 21st April 1988 to the civil Court and had sought further details as noticed in paragraph-4 supra. The executing Court passed an order dated 5th January 1990 in Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1984 directing the applicants/decree holders to supply necessary details. In the said order, time limit of seven days was prescribed for compliance of the order. The executing Court vide its order dated 4th December 1992 dismissed the said Regular Darkhast No. 19 of 1984 for default, since no steps were taken by the applicants/decree holders to comply with the order dated 5th January 1990. The restoration application seeking restoration of the said Darkhast was also rejected by the executing Court holding It to be barred by limitation.