This appeal is directed against an order of Mr. B. Goswami, Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam Districts, Jorhat, dated 10-3-58, in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1957. By the order in question, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal of the judgment-debtor holding that the execution case was time-barred and reversing the decision given by the learned Munsiff in favour of the decree-holder. The order, in my opinion, is misconceived and has to be set aside.

(2) The decree to which the execution case relates was passed in Title Suit No. 47 of 1952 in favour of the decree-holder appellant, giving vari­ous reliefs to the decree-holder, namely, for eject­ment, for Khas possession and for compensation. The date of the decree is 15-11-52. Execution was started on the basis of the decree in Execution: Case No. 73 of 1953, which .was filed on 25-11-53, obviously well within three years of the date of the decree.

It appears that the judgment-debtor appeared in the execution case and filed objections under Sec. 47, C. P. Code, but his objections were over­ruled, and he failed even on appeal. Ultimately, however, the execution case was dismissed for de­fault on 31-8-56. Almost immediately thereafter the decree-holder levied a fresh execution of the decree on 8-9-56, this being Execution Case No. 56 of 1956. This execution case was also disposed of on 30-11-56, and the present execution case, being Execution Case No. 14 of 1957, was levied on 4-3-57.

It is quite clear from the dates which I have given above that all these execution cases were levied within time. Indeed it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that Execu­tion Case No. 73 of 1953 was properly instituted, hut the allegation is that certain steps were taken in the said execution case by a lawyer who had really no authority to take those steps. For ins­tance, on behalf of the decree-holder, a petition was filed in that execution case on 13-7-54 and again another on 5-1-56 by one Sri P. Pathak, a pleader who had no authority to do so.

The learned Munsiff was of the view that a vakalatnama must have been filed by the pleader before taking any action in the case, but it was probably misplaced, and he accordingly directed a fresh vakalatnama to be filed by the pleader con­cerned. The learned Subordinate Judge has not accepted this part of the finding of the learned Munsiff. He opines that actually there was no vakalatnama on the record; and that being so the whole execution case was, according to him, illegal and void and could not operate to save limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in making any such assumption. It is not disputed that the execution case itself was filed by a lawyer having authority to do so. As such, it was an application for execution presented in accor­dance with law to the proper Court, and under clause (5) of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, limitation would run from the date of the final order in the case. The date of the final order ad­mittedly was 31-8-56, dismissing the execution case.

Therefore, there could be no limitation so far as the present execution goes; but even assuming for the sake of argument that some steps were taken in the first execution proceeding by a lawyer who had no authority to represent the decree-holder, that would be a mere irregularity which would not affect the validity of the execution pro­ceeding itself. Besides, it appears that the objec­tion is no longer open to the judgment-debtor res­pondent. He had already filed objection under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that exe­cution case, and failed both before the executing Court as well as on appeal.

If there was any irregularity in the execution proceeding on the ground now set up by the judgment-debtor, it was his duty to raise this ob­jection in the execution case. That not having! been done, the objection is no longer open to the judgment-debtor, and the principle of constructive res judicata would apply in such a case even

Click Here to Read the rest of this document