LAWS(MPH)-1995-10-48

RAWAL SINGH Vs. M.P. GRIHA NIRMAN MANDAL

Decided On October 06, 1995
RAWAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
M.P. GRIHA NIRMAN MANDAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions arise from the impugned orders dated 30.10.1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 42 -A/1984 (Civil Revision No. 578/93) and Civil Suit No. 40 -A of 1984 (Civil Revision No. 584/93) by n Additional District Judge, Balaghat whereby the application for execution of the ex parte decrees passed in the said civil suits was held to be time -barred and was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) DECREES in Civil Suit No. 42 -N84 and Civil Suit No. 40 -N84 were passed in favour of the applicant whereby a mandatory injunction to the effect against the non -applicant/defendant" was passed that the non -applicant" would allot an MIG type house to the applicant whenever it is constructed, at the price, as prevailing for the said type of house in the year 1978. The ex -parte decrees to the above effect passed on 21st June, 1985 were sought to be executed by an applications for execution dated 20.1.1993, which were held to be time -barred and dismissed by the impugned -order.

(3.) IT is an admitted position of the case that the ex parte decree against the defendants/non -applicants was passed by the trial Court on 21.6.1985 and that it was a decree for mandatory injunction. Period of limit.1tion for enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction is governed by Nticle -135 of the Limit.1tion Act and is provided as 3 years from the date of the decree or where a date is fixed for performance, such date. In the present case, on perusal of the copy of the decree, it is clear that no date of performance was specified in the original decree passed in the civil suit. Therefore, the date of the decree, i.e., 21st June, 1985 would be the date from which the limit.1tion would be computed. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the date ought to be computed from the date on which the appeal against an order dismissing application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was passed and that date as mentioned above was 30.11.1.992. The above argument evidently cannot be accepted.