DEO NARAYAN GOALA Vs. JAGADISH PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A title suit filed by the decree-holder opposite party against the judgment-debtor petitioner was decreed on 4th March, 1968. That decree was put under execution. It appears that in Execution Case No. 14 of 1978 the judgment-debtor filed a petition No. 49/11 praying for the stay of the execution till the harvesting of the crop was done. The decree-holder opposed that petition of the judgment-debtor. The learned Munsiff executing the decree rejected the application of the judgment-debtor. He also rejected the objection of the decree-holder on the ground that the petition filed by the judgment-debtor had become redundant. The learned Munsiff also passed a further order in the following terms : "D. H. took no other steps for proceeding with execution. Hence the case is dismissed for default."

(2.) The above order was passed by the learned Munsiff on 11 th July, 1980. The decree-holder filed an application No. 92/14 before the learned Munsiff praying that the said order dated 11th July, 1980 be set aside. The judgment-debtor filed a petition N. 94/2 contesting the said application of the decree-holder. The learned Munsiff having found that the grounds stated in the petition of the decree-holder were quite satisfactory, allowed his application and rejected the petition of the judgment-debtor by his order dated 14th July, 1980 and fixed 24th July, 1980 for taking steps by the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor feeling aggrieved has filed the instant petition under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, impugning the validity of the said order dated 14th July, 1980.

(3.) For the revisionist it was urged that the decree-holder had filed the application for setting aside the order dated 11th July 1980 under S.151, Code of Civil Procedure which, in view of the provisions of Rr.105 and 106 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure, was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the court below could not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S.151, Code of Civil Procedure when there was a specific provision to deal with the matter under R.106 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the decree-holder opposite party submitted that as the period of 12 years calculated from 4th March, 1968, had already expired long before 11th July, 1980, when the execution application was rejected by the trial court on the ground of non-prosecution, the court below had inherent jurisdiction to recall its order and restore the execution petition with a view to meet the ends of justice.