GOPAL LAL Vs. RAM KARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in re vision against the finding recorded by the 4th Additional Munsif, Varanasi, in a suit filed under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure on issue No. 2 relating to limitation.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the applicants-decree-holders sought to exe cute their decree in respect of a house. The opposite-party, Ram Karan Singh obstructed execution of the decree whereupon the de cree-holders filed an application before the execution Court under Order XXI, Rule 97, C. P. C. and Ram Karan Singh filed objec tions under clause (2) of Rule 97. The exe cuting Court allowed the application under Rule 98 of Order XXI, C. P. C. rejecting the objections raised by Ram Karan Singh claiming that in accordance with Rule 99 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure the application should be rejected. The said order was passed by the execution Court on the 24th of October, 1964. The present appli cants came up to this Court against that order by filing a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. which was admitted and later dis missed on merits after hearing the parties on 3-5-1967. The suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, C. P. C. was filed thereafter on the 11th of May, 1967.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the par ties were heard at length and my attention was drawn not only to the provisions of Arti cle 98 of the Limitation Act, specially, the words 'final order' but also to the observa tions made by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the case reported in AIR 1955 Trav-Co 51 (Govinda Menon Raman Menon v. Krishna Pillai Kesava Pillai), AIR 1938 Cal 577 (Smt. Meghmala Debi v. Saday Parhya) and also by the opposite party to AIR 1943 Mad 633 (Venkataswami v. Sara Bai) and two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1967 SC 681 (State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.) and AIR 1970 SC 1 (Shankar Ram Chandra v. Krishnaji Datta traya).