JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a judgment-debtors execution second appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge Jhunjhunu.

2. The facts which have given rise to it are these. Mahadeo Lal respondent No. I brought a suit for mandatory injunction against Thakur Bhim Singh respondent No. 2 and Dr. Ram Kumar appellant in respect of a piece of land 1561/2 ft. x 11 ft. on which the appellant had made some constructions. The trial court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 29-4-52. Under this decree Dr. Ram Kumar was directed to demolish his constructions standing on the land in dispute within one month failing which they were to be removed at his expense on the plaintiffs applying to the court for execution. In the alternative the defendants were given the option of paying Rs.257/- by way of compensation to the plaintiff within one month failing which the decree for mandatory injunction was to become absolute.

3. Neither of the two defendants paid nor tendered the sum of Rs. 257/- to the plaintiff during the period stipulated in the decree. On 2.7.52 on the re-opening of the courts after the vacation the appellant filed an application to the court explaining various circumstances in which he was unable to deposit the money by 29th May, 1952 and prayed for extension of time granted under the decree to enable him to deposit the money. On that date the presiding officer was on leave and the application was ordered to be put on 7-7-52. On this application without issuing notice to the. plaintiff the presiding officer passed an order extending the time granted under the decree upto 7-7-52 and on that date the appellant deposited Rs. 257/-.

4. The decree-holder filed an application on 3-7-57 for execution of the decree. This application was also put up before the presiding officer on 7-7-52 on his return from leave. There were two prayers in the application namely the recovery of the amount of costs and the demolition of the constructions. The presiding officer does not appear to have applied his mind to the application and signed a routine order written by his clerk for warrant of attachment to be issued.

5. There is another order on the order-sheet of the execution file below the above order in which it is mentioned that the lawyer of defendant No, 2 deposited Rs. 257/- and prayed for stay of execution proceedings. The court stayed execution proceedings 011 this application without issuing notice to the decree-holder.

6. On 2-7-52 the appellant filed an appeal against the decree passed by the trial court. This appeal was dismissed on 10.11.52 and the order of the trial court was affirmed.

7. It was during the course of the arguments of this appeal that the learned counsel for the plaintiff learnt for the first time about the order of the court dated 7-7-52 extending the time for depositing the money. An appeal was then preferred against the order dated 7-7-52 on 18.11.52 along with an application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act in which it was alleged that the plaintiff had knowledge of the order dated 7-7-52 for the first time on 4-11-52 The appellate court allowed the application under sec. 5 Limitation Act and set aside the order dated 7-7-52 on appeal holding that the court had no power to extend the time fixed for depositing the money under the decree either under sec. 148 Code of Civil Procedure or under sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Against the above order the present second appeal has been preferred. Three points have been urged on behalf of the appellant.

9. The first contention on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff had knowledge of the order dated 7-7-52. Reliance is placed on an allegation made in the memorandum of appeal preferred by the plaintiff in the High Court in which it was mentioned that the executing court had overruled the plaintiffs objection that it could not go behind the decree. This memorandum of appeal was not signed by the plaintiff but was signed by one Shri B.K. Bhargava, an advo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document