PAUL Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As early as 16-3-1970, an order was passed by a Munsiff directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner arrears of rent claimed in the suit. Such an order falls within the purview of S.73(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'). The operative portion of the order reads thus: "It is decreed and ordered that in case the defendants fail to pay the said amount and costs within six months from today, plaintiff may move the court as provided in S.73 of Act for realisation of the sum". As late as 15-9-1982, the petitioner in whose favour the order was passed, filed an application in the same Munsiff's court for sending a requisition to the District Collector to realise the amount. The application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on the ground that the application is barred by limitation. This Civil Revision Petition is in challenge of the said order.

(2.) The reasoning of the learned Munsiff for dismissing the application is the following: "Only after 12 years period the petitioner has resorted to necessary steps for executing the decree. The time for executing of a decree being three (sic) years and there being no prior petition so far filed in respect of the decree for execution, the petition filed in 1983 is hopelessly time barred". Learned counsel contended that the period for execution of a decree is twelve years as per Art.136 of the Limitation Act and that the time would begin to run only on the expiry of six months from the date of the order, and if that period of six months is excluded the application would be within time This contention need not be considered in this case because the application was not filed in execution court, nor can it be treated as an execution petition. The application was filed on the trial side itself where it was numbered as an interlocutory application. Be that as it may, the petitioner must succeed on another ground.

(3.) S.73(8) of the Act is a special provision for realisation of the amount covered by any one of the three sub-sections. There can be no doubt that the order sought to be enforced by the petitioner was one passed under sub-s.(2). The special provision contained in sub-s.(8) reads like this: