Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo & Ors  INSC 523 (7 May 1997)
RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
O R D
E R Leave granted.
appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court of Bombay,made on January 20, 1997 inWrit Petition 6182 of 1996.
admitted position isthat the respondent No.1. is the owner of the property and
earlier anotice was issued to the appellant to vacate the land in question.
That order of eviction became final with theconfirmation ofthe order by this
Court in a special leave petition. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for
execution. An objection has been raised on the ground that since more than 12 yearshave
elapsed, the order cannot be implemented. The High Court has pointedout that
under Section 21 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906, it has not prescribedany
limitation for execution of the orders vide the Division Bench judgment of the
High Courtof Bombay in Babaji Khandujivs. Kushaba Ramji [8 BombayLaw Reporter
learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in the absence of fixation of
rule of limitation, the power can be exercised withina reasonable time and in
the absenceof such prescription of limitation, the power to enforcethe order is
vitiatedby error of law. He places reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha &Ors. [(1970)
1 SCR 335]; Ram Chand & Ors. vs Union of India& Ors.[(1994)1 SCC 44 ]; andMohamadKavi
MohamadAmin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [CA No. 5023/85 decided on August 22, 1996]. We find no force in the
contention. It is seen that the order of ejectment against the applicant has
become final. Section 21 of the Mamalatdar's Court Actdoes not prescribe any
limitation within which the order needs to be executed. In the absence of anyspecific
limitation provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the generallaw oflimitation
provided in Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) standsexcluded. The Division Bench,
Therefore, has rightlyheld that no limitation has been prescribed and it can beexecuted
at any time,especially when the law of limitation forthe purpose ofthis appeal
is not there.
there isstatutory ruleoperating in the field, the impliedpower of exercise of
the right within reasonable limitation does not arise. The citeddecisions dealwith
that area and bear no relevanceto the facts.
accordingly dismissed. No costs.