OM PRAKASH Vs. MST. RAM SRI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holders execution second appeal.

(2.) The decree-holder was the plaintiff in a suit under Sec. 209 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That suit was decreed on 12-8-1961 and the defendants dispossession was ordered. The plaintiff was further granted a decree for damages. The application for execution was filed on 22-7-1965. The defendant filed an objection on 16-8-1965 on the ground that the execution was barred by time. It appears that on 17-8-1965 a formal Dakhal was taken by the decree-holder, and the judgment-debtor filed another objection that the Dakhal was fictitious. The trial Court, by an order dated 21-3-1966 allowed the judgment-debtors objection holding the execution as barred by time. It rejected the judgment-debtors objection as regards the Dakhal being fictitious. Two appeals were filed before the lower appellate Court. The judgment-debtor filed his appeal against that part, of the trial Courts order which held that the Dakhal was not fictitious. The decree-holder filed his appeal against the striking out of the execution as barred by time. The appellate court, by its order dated 30-11-1967 allowed the judgment-debtors appeal and dismissed the one filed by the decree-holder. It held that the execution was barred by time, and the trial courts order striking out the execution on that ground was correct. The decree-holders appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. It allowed the judgment-debtors appeal holding that the Dakhal purporting to have been taken on 17-8-1965 was fictitious, and hence the judgment-debtors objection to that effect was allowed.

(3.) The decree-holder has come up in second appeal and the main point urged on his behalf was that the execution was not time-barred and the court below had erred in holding to the contrary. The time prescribed for the execution of a decree or order passed in a suit under Sec. 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is contained in Appendix III of that Act in Items 51 to 53 which are as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(ALL)12_1978.html</FRM>