RATANSINGH Vs. VIJAYSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) A decree-holder after securing a decree went into slumber and remained as such for a pretty long period like a Rip Van Winkle. When he awoke he realised that his decree became rust corroded and lost its enforceability due to efflux of a number of years. In his search to find out a least a straw to cling on he came across an order of the High Court by which a Second Appeal preferred by his opposite party was dismissed as time barred. The Execution Court resuscitated the decree with the help of the said order, but the District Court in a revision held otherwise. This appeal by Special Leave is against the order of the District Court as the High Court shut its door for the decree-holder when he knocked at it. The High Court pointed out to him that the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') had already been exercised by the District Court on which such powers were delegated in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) The decree which the appellant succeeded in obtaining was one for possession of the suit property. The trial Court passed the decree on 14-12-1970. The respondent filed the First Appeal against it but it was dismissed on 1-8-1973. The execution petition was filed only on 24-3-1998 which obviously was beyond time fixed by the Limitation Act. Then appellant though of availing himself of the benefit of an order passed by the High Court on 31-3-1976 when the High Court rejected a Second Appeal filed by the respondent against the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court. That order of rejection was passed only on the ground that the delay in filing the Second Appeal was not properly explained. As the appellant now made an endeavour to utilize the said order we may extract the material portion of it hereunder: