AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR No. 23 of 2024 • Vishnu Kesari @ Lallu Prasad (Dead) Through His Legal Representative Nil.

(Judgement Debtor)

(1. A). Ramesh Kumar Padhi Son Of Late Vishnu Kesari Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisarh.

(1. B). Krishna Kumar Son Of Late Vishnu Kesari Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisarh.

--- Applicants.

Versus

1. Smt. Sunita Wife Of Late Ashok Kumar Padhi Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Decree Holder)

2. Preeti Padhi Daughter Of Late Ashok Kumar Padhi (Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Smt. Sunita Padhi), Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

3. Hina Padhi Nazir Ahmed Daughter Of Late Ashok Kumar Padhi (Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Smt. Sunita Padhi), Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

4. Pawan Kumar Padhi Son Of Late Madhusudan @ Basantlal Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

5. Geeta Padhi Daughter Of Late Madhusudan @ Basnatlal Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

6. Rita Padhi Daughter Of Late Madhusudan @ Basnatlal Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

7. Shail Padhi Daughter Of Late Madhusudan @ Basntalal Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents.

……………………………………….………………………………………………

For Applicant : Ms. Smriti Ekka, Advocate.

For Respondents : None.

……………………………………….………………………………………………

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.

Order On Board

21/2/2024

1. This Revision has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor being aggrieved with the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.01/2017, whereby, the application preferred by them raising objection that execution petition was timed barred, has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor filed a Civil Suit on 14.04.1987 seeking relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property. In the said suit, the non-applicant/defendant/preliminary decree holder filed a written statement and counter claim seeking half share of the suit property. However, the said suit was dismissed and counter claim of the defendant was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/1989 (Annexure-A/5). Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.7-A/1991 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure-A/6). Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.828/1995, however, the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure-A/7).

3. On 31.01.2017 the defendant moved an application under Section 54 of the CPC r/w Order 20 Rule 18 for execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1991, in which, the plaintiff had moved an application under Section 47 of the CPC raising a ground that the execution proceeding is barred by limitation as the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was stayed during the pendency of Appeal, which was well within the knowledge of the defendant/decree holder. It was also stated that execution proceedings were instituted after 25 years 6 months and 13 days. However, by the impugned order, the said objection was rejected.

Hence, this revision has been filed for quashing of the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record carefully. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Pal Soni Vs.

Sohan Lal¹ held that the doctrine of merger applies to a situation when the limitation for filing of an execution application is to be computed. There was a merger of the judgment of the trial Court with the decision wh