LexPURNI DEVI & ANR. versus BABU RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 37 : 2024 INSC 259 Purni Devi & Anr. v. Babu Ram & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2024) 02 April 2024 [Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration A suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Application for execution was filed before the Tehsildar (settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. The application was rejected on 29.01.2005. The Tehsildar observed that plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate jurisdiction. Whether the period (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Headnotes Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed the execution application preferred by the plaintiff being barred by limitation – Sustainability: Held: In the present case, it is not in dispute that:- (i) Both the proceedings are civil in nature and have been prosecuted by the Plaintiff or the predecessor in interest; (ii) The failure of the execution proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction; (iii) Both the proceedings pertain to execution of the decree dated 10.12.1986, which attains finality on 09.11.2000; (iv) Both the proceedings are in a court – No substantial averment has come on record to substantiate the claim that the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiff approached the Tehsildar with any mala fide intention, in the absence of good faith or with the knowledge that it was not the Court having competent jurisdiction to execute the decree – On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has pursued the matter bonafidely and diligently and in good faith before what it believed to be the appropriate forum and, therefore, such time period is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the Court having competent jurisdiction – All conditions stipulated for invocation of s.14 of the Limitation Act are fulfilled – Therefore, the period from 18.12.2000, when 38 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the execution application was filed to 29.01.2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, has to be excluded while computing period of limitation – The impugned order of the High Court dated 09.04.2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar dated 28.11.2007 (dismissing application of plaintiff as being barred by limitation) are set aside – The execution application of the Plaintiff is restored to the file of the Munsiff Court, Hiranagar for fresh consideration. [Paras 32, 37, 38, 39, 40] Case Law Cited Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principle Secy, Irrigation Department [2008] 5 SCR 1108 : (2008) 7 SCC 169; M.P. Steel Corporation v. CCE [2015] 7 SCR 291 : (2015) 7 SCC 58 – relied on. Prem Lata Agarwal v. Lakshman Prasad Gupta and others [1971] 1 SCR 364 : (1970) 3 SCC 440; Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd. [2021] 3 SCR 806 : (2021) 7 SCC 313; Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 1790 – referred to. J&K Bank Limited etc. v. Amar Poultry Farm AIR 2007 J&K 56 – referred to. List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963; J&K Limitation Act; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Application for execution; Appropriate jurisdiction; Limitation; Computing the period of limitation; Pursued the matter bonafidely and diligently; Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2018 of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in CREV No. 33 of 2008 [2024] 4 S.C.R. 39 Purni Devi & Anr. v. Babu Ram & Anr. Appearances for Parties Nitin Sangra, Riju Ghosh, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Advs. for the Appellants. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave Granted. 2. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order in Civil Revision No.33/2008 dated 09.04.2018 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, whereby the judgment and order of Munsiff, Hiranagar, in File No. 70/Execution dated 28.11.2007 came to be affirmed, wherein the execution application preferred by the Plaintiff herein was dismissed, being barred by limitation. Factual History 3. The genesis of the case at hand dates back to 01
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.