PANNALAL GHOSH Vs. JAGESH CH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above civil revision petitions, the same question in similar factual premises having arisen, I propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) THE background facts in brief are as follows:- One Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners instituted several suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein which were decreed on contest or exparte in his favour. The said suits were decreed on different dates between 1961 to 1966. No execution proceeding was, however, instituted within the prescribed period of limitation either by Akhil Chandra Ghosh or after his demise, his legal heirs. The execution proceedings were, however, instituted in 1989 after a period of more than 23 years by the legal heirs of Akhil Chandra Ghosh with a prayer for extending the period of limitation under Section 17 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned executing Court refused to extend the period of limitation and consequently rejected the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by such rejection, they filed four review applications which came to be decided by the impugned judgments and orders in the aforementioned civil revision petitions Nos. 4 of 1999, 5 of 1999, 6 of 1999 and 7 of 1999. In other three Civil Revisions Nos. 8 of 1999, 9 of 1999 and 38 of 2000, the petitioners herein, instead of seeking review of the orders before the Executing court directly put under challenge the orders whereby the said court rejected the prayer under Section 17 (2) of the Limitation Act.

(3.) IT was argued before the executing court that the petitioners came to discover that their eldest brother Nani Gopal Ghosh being won over by the judgment debtors for personal gains did not institute any execution proceeding for recovery of possession and because of this collusive act, the said proceeding could not be initiated within time. According to the petitioners, their elder brother Nani Gopal Ghosh was entrusted with the duty of looking after the legal proceedings in respect of the properties left behind by their father, but he betrayed the faith by not taking any step for instituting execution proceeding and, therefore, these facts justified extension of the period of limitation under Section 17 (2) of the Limitation Act.