-
UITAM NAMDEO MAHALE
v.
VITHAL DEO AND ORS.
MAY 7, 1997
(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.)
Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 :
A
B
S.21-0rder of eviction-Execution of-Limitation-Plea that since C
more than 12 years have elapsed, order cannot be implemented-Held, S.21
does not prescribe any limitation for execution of ordel'-Order of ejectment
has become final-It can be executed at any time, especially when law of
limitation for the purpose of this appeal is not there-Jn the absence of any
specific limitation provided u/s. 21, general law of limitation provided under
the Limitation Act, 1963 stands excluded-Limitation Act, 1963.
D
Babaji Khanduji v. Kushaba Ramji, 8 Bombay Law Reporter, (1906)
218, referred to.
State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors., (1970] 1 SCR 335; Ram
Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 44 and Mohamad E
Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai lbrahim, (1997] 6 SCC 71, held inap-
plicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3691 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.97 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 6182 of 1996.
AS. Bhasrne and Manoj K. Misra for the Appellant.
F
S.V. Tambwekar and Nitin Tambwekar for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court of H
257
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
Bombay, made on January 20, 1997 in Writ Petition 6182 of 1996.
The admitted position is that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of
the property and earlier a notice was issued to the appellant to vacate the
land in question. That order of eviction became final with the confirmation
of the order by this Court in a special leave petition. Thereafter, proceed-
B ings were initiated for execution. An objection has been raised on the
ground that since more than 12 years have elapsed, the order cannot be
implemented. The High Court has pointed out that under Section 21 of the
Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, it has not prescribed any limitation for
execution of the orders vide the Division Bench judgment of the High
C Court of Bombay in Babaji Khanduji v. Kushaba Ramji, 8 Bombay Law
Reporter(1906) 218.
Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in the
absence of fixation of rule of limitation, the power can be exercised within
a reasonable time and in the absence of such prescription of limitation,
D the power to enforce the order is vitiated by error of law. He places
reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors.,
[1970] 1 SCR 335; Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] 1
SCC 44 and Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, CA No.
5023/85 decided on August 22, 1996. We find no force in the contention.
E It is seen that the order of ejectment against the applicant has become final.
Section 21 of the Mamalatdar's Court Act does not prescribe any limitation
within which the order needs to be executed. In the absence of any specific
limitation provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the general
law of limitation provided in Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) stands ex-
cluded. The Division Bench, therefore, has rightly held that no limitation
F
has been prescribed and it can be executed at any time, especially when
the law of limitation for the purpose of this appeal is not there. Where
there is statutory rule operating in the field, the implied power of exercise
of the right within reasonable limitation does not arise. The cited decisions
deal with that area and bear no relevance to the facts.
G
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
..
Lex