VISHNU KESARI Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor being aggrieved with the order dtd. 16/1/2024 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Bastar, Jagdalpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.01/2017, whereby, the application preferred by them raising objection that execution petition was timed barred, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff/judgment debtor filed a Civil Suit on 14/4/1987 seeking relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property. In the said suit, the non-applicant/defendant/preliminary decree holder filed a written statement and counter claim seeking half share of the suit property. However, the said suit was dismissed and counter claim of the defendant was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the defendant vide judgment and decree dtd. 18/7/1991 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/1989 (Annexure-A/5). Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.7-A/1991 which was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 15/11/1995 (Annexure-A/6). Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.828/1995, however, the same was also dismissed vide judgment dtd. 9/2/2012 (Annexure-A/7).

(3.) On 31/1/2017 the defendant moved an application under Sec. 54 of the CPC r/w Order 20 Rule 18 for execution of the judgment and decree dtd. 18/7/1991, in which, the plaintiff had moved an application under Sec. 47 of the CPC raising a ground that the execution proceeding is barred by limitation as the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court was stayed during the pendency of Appeal, which was well within the knowledge of the defendant/decree holder. It was also stated that execution proceedings were instituted after 25 years 6 months and 13 days. However, by the impugned order, the said objection was rejected. Hence, this revision has been filed for quashing of the impugned order.