Back
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Indramani (Died) Through LRs Rudra Mani Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Chandrika Prasad – Respondent
ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/decree holders challenging the order dated 13.8.2014 passed by Addl. Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa in execution case No.132-A/93/11 whereby allowing the judgment debtor/respondent’s application/objection dtd.19.10.2012, the Executing Court has dismissed the execution application as barred by limitation.
2. In short, the facts are that, upon filing civil suit No.132A/93 by the applicants/decree holders for redemption of mortgage of the land in question and due to non-appearance of the defendants 1-2 (including State of M.P.), the suit was decreed on 25.10.1996 to the effect that upon making payment of Rs.500/- by the plaintiffs, the defendant 1 shall handover possession of the land in question.
3. Undisputedly, application under Order IX rule 13 CPC was filed by respondent/judgment debtor on 8.2.2000, which upon due consideration was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2004. Misc. Appeal filed against which by respondent, was dismissed on 9.12.2005 and CR No.136/2006 was dismissed on 30.9.2011 by High Court. Similarly, SLP No.13628/13 was also dismissed on 20.3.2013.
4. Admittedly, the execution
The applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act supersedes Article 137 for final decree applications, allowing exclusion of prior litigation periods in calculating limitation.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
