Sukra Uraon vs Manjhi Lal Biswanath Sahi Deo

Dhavle, J.—The order of the learned Judicial Commissioner cannot be supported. The decree under execution was a decree for arrears of rent in respect of a thika tenure. The learned Judicial Commissioner observes that on this account the property was not saleable in any case. It does not appear why that should be so. It is not stated anywhere that the thika came to an end with the period for which arrears of rent had been decreed, and unless it did so, the judgment-debtors have an interest which would prima facie appear to be saleable.

In any case it is impossible to accept as correct the view of the learned Judicial Commissioner that the permission of the Deputy Commissioner u/s 210(2) was a mere formality and should have been given as a matter of course. The Section requires the permission of the Deputy Commissioner ''granted for reasons to be recorded in writing and this is sufficient to show that the permission is not a mere formality.

That the Court did at first allow the execution to proceed is not a circumstance on which any valid argument can be based, in view of the fact that the Section requires permission with reasons recorded in writing. Nor is it clear that the learned Judicial Commissioner was right when he impliedly accepted the correctness of the decree-holder''s contention that if the execution case be dismissed, his claim would now be time barred.

The execution petition undoubtedly mentions 5th May 1933 as the date of decree but the order of the Deputy Collector gives 5th September 1935 as the date of the decree, and that is a circumstance to which the learned Judicial Commissioner has not referred at all. The decree itself is not on the record before me. The view that permission u/s 210(2) is a formal affair and may be given impliedly is opposed to the wording of the Section and must be reversed. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Judicial Commissioner set aside.