RAM BACHAN RAI Vs. RAM UDAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court summarily rejecting the Civil Revision filed by the appellants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code').

(2.) The Civil Revision was filed against the order of the Executing Court allowing the application for execution of a decree which was passed more than 14 years ago.

(3.) A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in which the appellants had appeared and filed a written statement. The suit was decreed ex parte as the defendants did not appear on the date fixed. The ex parte decree in the concerned suit was passed on 3.5.1976. No appeal was, however, filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The present appellants who are the judgment debtors filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed for default on 14.7.1978. The said application was not restored by the trial Court and a Miscellaneous Appeal filed also stood dismissed on 10.1.1987. The Civil revision filed against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 6.4.1987. At no stage any stay was granted by any Court and the respondents as decree holders filed an application for execution on 5.4.1991. According to the appellants, only a symbolic possession was taken as no notice as mandatorily required to be served in terms of Order XXI Rule 22 or Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever served on the judgment debtors. When the judgment debtors came to know of the symbolic possession taken by the decree holders, they filed objection under Section 47 CPC saying that the decree was not legally enforceable as it was barred by time.