Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The Management Committee, Shri Dadu Mahavidyalaya & Chhatrawas, the petitioner-defendant-objector, is aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the objections raised by the petitioner to the execution of the decree.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-decree holder, Bhanwar Lal Kumawat, had filed a civil suit challenging his termination order dated 30.6.1975 passed by the petitioner. By judgment and decree dated 16.8.1983, the termination order was set aside and the plaintiff-respondent's termination was declared to be illegal as being violative of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.8.1983, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge challenging the setting aside of the termination order, the reinstatement of the plaintiff and the direction issued by the learned trial court directing the petitioner to pay the backwages to the plaintiff. However, after establishment of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, the said appeal was transferred to the learned Tribunal. By judgment dated 19.9.1995, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, but confirmed rest of the judgment and decree dated 16.8.1983. Thereafter on 15.11.2006, the plaintiff initiated execution proceedings. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application, inter alia, raising an objection about the maintainability of the execution proceedings ostensibly on the ground that the execution proceedings were hit by limitation. However, by order dated 16.2.2013, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application. Hence, this revision petition before this court.

3. Mr. R.B. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the original decree was passed by the learned trial court on 16.8.1983. According to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for execution of a decree is twelve years. Yet the plaintiff did not start the execution proceedings till 15.11.2006. Hence, clearly the execution proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation.

4. Secondly, during pendency of the appeal before the learned Tribunal, there was no stay granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the decree passed by the learned trial court was in operation. Hence, the plaintiff was free to initiate the execution proceedings during the period that the appeal was pending before the learned Tribunal.

5. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has merely interfered with the payment of the backwages. But it has not interfered with the plaintiff's reinstatement. Therefore, the part of the decree with regard to the plaintiff's reinstatement was never touched by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, that part of the decree continued to exist while the appeal was pending before the learned Tribunal. Despite the part of the decree being in effect from 1983 onwards, the plaintiff still did not file execution of this particular part of the decree within the limitation period of twelve years. Therefore, the execution proceedings are hit by limitation.

6. Lastly, since only part of the decree has been modified, only this particular portion of the decree has merged with the modified judgment/ order passed by the learned Tribunal. But rest of the decree has continued to exist, has continued to be operational, has continued to be in force ever since it was granted in the year 1983.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Raj Kumawat, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the stand taken by Mr. Mathur. He has raised the following pleas before this court: firstly, the petitioner had not challenged only part of the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document