SETH SRI NIWAS Vs. L. SHIAM BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS execution second appeal arises put of an objection taken to the execution of a decree for possession. It appears that the Respondents decree -holders sued for possession of some land and also preyed for demolition of certain constructions said to have been made by the Appellants on the land. This suit was decreed ex -party on the 5th May, 1947. The Defendants Appellants went in appeal and then again in second appeal but both the appeals were dismissed and the decree became final on the 15th November, 1949. The decree holders then applied for execution of the decree on the 25th of April 1951. In this application they mentioned the property which was decreed in their favour and asked for a relief of possession on the laud and for demolition of the constructions. The application was registered and notice was issued to the judgment debtors, namely, the present Appellants. The decree holders, however, did not deposit the possess fee and the execution application was dismissed for default of the decree holders.

(2.) THE decree holders made a second application for execution on the 12th January, 1952, and objections were filed by the Appellants judgment debtors under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They pleaded that the execution application was barred by time and that the land which had been decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs had vested in the State under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned Munsif who heard the objections found in favour of the Appellants on both the points and allowed the objection. The decree holders then went in appeal. The lower appellate Court found in favour of the decree holders on both the points and dismissed the objection. The judgments debtors have now same up in second appeal.

(3.) IT has further been argued on behalf of the Appellants that the application for execution having been dismissed for default of the decree holders it should not be held to be a step in aid of execution. The entry in Sub -clause (5) Column 3 against Article 182 of the Limitation Act is as follows: