Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1229
2009 (74) ALR 399
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT-LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
WAQF TAKIYAN INAYAT ALI SHAH @ TAKIYA KALAN –Appellant
Versus
DILEEP SINGH-Respondent
W.P No (M/S) 2964 of 1997
Decided on: May 23, 2008
Counsel for the Respondents: S.P. Shukla.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair and liberal interpretation of the law to enable the decree holder to obtain the fruits of the decree, emphasizing the advancement of justice over strict technicalities.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Execution of Decree - Article 135, Article 136 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 135, Article 136, Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act - The court discussed the applicability of Article 135 and Article 136 of the Limitation Act in relation to the execution of a decree for possession by demolition. The court also considered the provisions of Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act and their impact on the execution application. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the limitation period and the application of legal principles in determining the enforceability of the decree.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit for possession of land by demolition of the structure thereon and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The decree was challenged and various execution applications were filed, leading to disputes over the jurisdiction and timing of the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for execution was not time-barred and should be considered based on the date when the decree became capable of execution. The court emphasized the need for a fair and liberal interpretation of the law to enable the decree holder to reap the fruits of the decree.
Issues: The issues revolved around the calculation of the limitation period for executing the decree, the jurisdiction of the courts where the execution applications were filed, and the impact of corrections made to the decree on the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the limitation period, the application of equitable principles, and the need to advance the cause of justice through a fair and liberal construction of the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts were set aside. The Executing Court was directed to proceed with the matter and conclude it within a maximum period of three months.
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Heard Shri Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Shukla, appearing for the contesting respondents
2. Petitioners have filed a suit (Regular Suit No. 10/1963) for possession of land by demolition of the structure thereon and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The said suit was decreed by the erstwhile Court of Civil and Sessions Judge on 15.2.1965. The decree dated 15.2.1965 was challenged by Rajendra Prasad alias Nageshwar Prasad and others before this Court by filing an appeal which was numbered as Appeal No. 3/65 and this Court confirmed the decree in respect of some plots and as regards other plots the same was set aside.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court, said Rajendra Prasad alias Nageshwar Prasad and others preferred Special Leave Petition No. 2143 of 1982 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vides judgment and order dated 30.7.1982. However it pro tided that the eviction shall not be executed before the end of April 1983 on the condition that the respondents-petitioners shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord on or before the end of April, 1983. It was further provided that the respondent shall clear the arrears of rent and shall also pay compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month.
4. It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of Appeal No. 3/65 before this Court, plaintiff No.2 (Mian Saifullah Shah) expired. In the judgment, the name of legal heirs were to be substituted but inadvertently the name of the petitioner No.2 alone was substituted by the order dated 24.4.1980 and as such an application for correction was moved and the necessary correction could be made only after the passing of order dated 5.12.1991. Thereafter, the petition moved an application for execution of decree on 14.12.1992 in good faith before the Court of 1st Additional District Judge as the decree was rinsed by the Civil and Sessions Judge" to which opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed objections on 11.8.1995 stating therein that the Court of Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to executed the decree and also the said objections were filed after three years. The Additional District Judge vide order dated 21.2.1997 held that the application for execution was not maintainable before the Court of Additional District Judge and directed for return of the execution application for presentation before the appropriate Court.
5. It may be pointed out that the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge was abolished and in its place, the Court of Additional District Judge was created.
6. Consequent to the return of the execution application, the petitioners presented the same before the Court of Civil Judge alongwith an application under section 5/14 of the Limitation Act praying therein that the delay in filing the execution application may be condoned for the period in which the same remained pending before the Additional District Judge. The Civil Judge, Bacharach rejected the application for condo nation of delay and also dismissed the execution case on the ground of it being barred by time.
7. Against the order passed by the Civil Judge, the petitioners preferred a revision. In the revision it was mentioned that the decree holders/petitioners moved an application for executing the decree passed in Original Suit No.3 of 63 in the Court of Civil Judge and an application under section 5/14 of the Indian Limitation Act was also filed for excluding the period from 14.12.1992 to 21.2.1997 between which the decree holder had been prosecuting the execution in the Court of IInd Additional District Judge with due/diligence and in good faith. The Revisional Court while dismissing the revision observed that the first appeal was decided by the High Court on 11.12.1981 and
