KARAN SINGH Vs. VITH ADDL D J GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Original suit No. 11 of 1988 was decreed on 21st August, 1985 ex parte. Execution Case No. 55 of 1985 was levied out of the said decree. The petitioner filed application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the said ex pane decree wherein by order dated 17th October, 1986, the execution was stayed till further orders. Misc. Case No. 68 of 1986 arising out of the said proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC in which the above interim order was passed was dismissed on 5th August, 1988, by reason whereof the order of stay granted ceased to be operative. By order dated 21st August, 1988, Execution Case No. 55 of 1985 stood dismissed for non-prosecution. On 26th September, 1988, an application for execution having been moved, Execution Case No. 35 of 1988 was registered. The petitioner took an objection before the learned trial court that the said execution case is not maintainable because of lapse of three years in between the date of the decree and the levy of execution in view of Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act where the period for execution of the present decree was prescribed as three years. The learned Munsif, by order dated 20th February, 1991 had allowed the said application and dismissed the execution. Against the said order dated 20th February, 1991, the opposite party moved Civil Revision No. 87 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge, VIII Court, Ghaziabad who, by order dated 13th March, 1995, allowed the said revision. It is against the said order the present revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Pramod Kumar Jain led by MR. S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the revision was allowed on a date when there was a strike by the lawyers ex pane without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, which according to him, is in clear violation of the principles of equity and natural justice. According to him, the execution could not be maintained beyond three years because of the fact even excluding the period during which the execution remained stayed. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Since I have not been able to find out any violation of fundamental principles of law as has been enunciated in the case of Ganga Saran v. District Judge, Hapur (sic), this writ petition is therefore dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .