Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2022


RSS Feed img

Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo & Ors [1997] INSC 523 (7 May 1997)




O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court of Bombay,made on January 20, 1997 inWrit Petition 6182 of 1996.

The 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 (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 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.

Where 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.

The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys