LexGHASI RAM AND ORS. versus CHAIT RAM SAINI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GHASI RAM AND ORS. v. CHAIT RAM SAINI AND ORS. JULY 22, 1998 [S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] Limitation Act 1963-Section 14-Benefit and applicability-Civil P.evisionfiled instead of fresh suit under order 21Rule103 CPC-Dismissed A B by High Court-Fresh suit filed, barred by Limitation- Munsif condoned delay-Affirmed by First Appellate Court-In Second Appeal High Court C held, condonation of delay improper as Revision had been entertained, not dismissed for want of jurisdiction and so the time spent in prosecuting the civil revision petition could be excluded and a fresh suit was the only remedy under CPC-On appeal Held, Appellant entitled to condonation of delay- Illiterate litigant not to suffer on ill-advice of counsel-Civil proceedings D before filing of fresh suit were prosecuted in good faith. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 21, Rules 97, 98, 99, JOO and 103-Scheme before Amendment Act, 1976-Decree holder could apply to court if delivery of possession resisted by some person-Court could secure possession of applicant after satisfaction in summary inquiry-Such order· E under Rule 98 was conclusive-Party other than judgment-debtor entitled to file fresh suit under Rule 103-Position changed after Amendment Act, 1976- All questions arising between parties to be acijudicated by executing court and not left to be decided in fresh suit. >. Words and Phrases-"Conclusive "-Meaning of in the context of Order F 21 Rule 103 CPC-"Good faith "-Meaning of in the context of Limitation Act of 1963-Section 14. The defendant-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of certain tenanted premises which was decreed. The plaintiff-appellant obstructed the G delivery of possession and filed some objections in the application moved for execution of the decree. The objection that he was a co-sharer in the property ""~ was r~jected. So he filed a civil revision before the High Court, instead of a fresh suit under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC which was also dismissed. He then brought a suit under Order 21Rule103 CPC Which was barred by limitation. The Munsif extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation H 863 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R. A Act 1908 and condoned the delay. It was affirmed by the first appellate court. In the second appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent, before the High Court, the question that arose for considerations was whether the plaintiff- appellant was entitled to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the civil revision petition. The High Court allowed the appeal and held that as the revision had been entertained :md not dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the B benefit under Section 14 of the Act Could not be given; moreover the Code provided for a suit under Order 21 Rule 103, as the only remedy. Aggrieved the appellant appealed to this Court contending that the High Court while exercising revisional power had no jurisdiction to decide c the matter on facts; and that the High Court Suffered form disability of adjudicate the matter and so the case fell within the expression "other cause . of a like nature" appearing in Section 14 of the Act. The respondent contended that Section 14 of the Act of 1908 did not apply to the present case. D Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Before the 1976 Amendment Act, if an order was passed under Rule 98 CPC allowing the ~pplication under Rule 97 CPC, it was conclusive between the parties except that a party other than the judgement- E debtor against whom the order was passed was entitled to file a fresh suit under Rule 103 to establish his right to the possession. The position has changed after 1976. Now, all questions, including right, title, interests in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings under Rule 97, have to be adjudicated by the executing court itself and not left to be decided by F way of a fresh suit. [870-A-C) 1.2. The word "conclusive" appearing in Rule 103 indicates that it creates a presumption in favour of facts relating to rights to property as well as legality of the matter stated in the order. Such an order passed under Rule 98 is not subject to any further enquiry in any other proceeding, except by G bringing a fresh suit under rule 103. In case no suit is filed under Rule 103, the order passed under Rule 98 is final between the parties. The High Court could not have entertained the revision since it suffered from "other cause of a like
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.