AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Bhavadasan, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the execution petition filed before the court below is barred by limitation. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:
In a suit for partition, preliminary decree was passed on 22.1.1983. I.A. 2232 of 1988 was filed for passing of the final decree and commission report was filed on 17.1.1990. The final decree seems to have been passed on 28.3.1990. Admittedly the present execution petition from which this revision arises seems to have been filed on 26.11.2004.
The main contention taken before this court is that the execution petition is barred by limitation and the time cannot be computed from the date of engrossing of the decree on stamp paper. In support of this principle, learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. Vs. Hari Das (D) by LRs., .
A perusal of the order of the lower court does not indicate that this issue has been considered at all. One of the main contentions taken was that the execution petition is barred by limitation. There is a contention by the respondents before this court that the proceedings in the final decree has been re-opened. This matter needs to be looked into and probed into.
The issue regarding limitation has necessarily to be considered by the court before granting delivery. This revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order in E.P. 160 of 2004 and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal in view of the decision in Chiranji Lal''s case (supra). The parties shall appear before the lower court on 3.9.2012. The court below may make every endeavour to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.