AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.G. Ramesh, J.—This revision petition is by the judgment Debtors. By the impugned order the executing Court has dismissed IA No. 3 filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors(tenants) to dismiss the execution petition in Execution case No. 1227/02.
Heard Sri G.S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.D. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order of the executing Court.
The Execution petition was filed pursuant to the eviction decree passed in HRC No. 99/1994 which was affirmed in HRRP No. 169/98 by granting time till 31.12.02 to vacate the premises. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed the aforesaid application-IA. 3 on the ground that the eviction decree had become unexecutable in view of the fresh lease deed dated 1.1.2003 granting lease for a period of one year from 1.1.2003. On a consideration of the matter, the executing court has dismissed the said application by the order impugned herein.
It is relevant to state that the execution petition was resisted by the petitioners/tenants on the ground of a fresh lease between the parties. The alleged fresh lease, in my opinion would amount to adjustment or satisfaction of the eviction decree. Accordingly, as provided in Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the application for recording of such adjustments/satisfaction should have been made within thirty days (from 1.1.2003) i.e. the date of the alleged fresh lease deed. Admittedly no such application was filed within time.
Sri G.S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC & Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I am unable to accept his submission in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain, and Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian, . A perusal of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court would show that a fresh lease would amount to adjustment or satisfaction of the eviction decree. Hence, it requires to be recorded in the manner provided under Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC and the application for such recording should be filed within the time allowed under Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is not in dispute that the present application-IA 3 was not filed within the time allowed by law. Hence, the executing Court was barred under Order 21 Rule 2(3)of CPC from recognising the alleged adjustments/satisfaction of the decree. Accordingly, I do not see any error in the order passed by the executing Court dismissing IA No. 3
In the result, the revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Sri G.S. Vishveshwara, learned Senior Counsel prays for stay of this order to approach the Apex Court. As the question raised is covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court, 1 decline to grant stay of this order.