LALTA PARSHAD Vs. MST. BADAMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal against order arises out of execution proceedings. On 11 -8 -1991 BK. Muni Lal obtained a decree for ejectment and rent against Lalta Parshad. During the pendency of these proceedings Shri Brij Balabh Parshad son of judgment -debtor wrote a letter praying for stay of proceedings under the Patiala Soldiers Litigation Act (Act 11 of 1997 BK.). On receipt of this letter the executing Court passed an order that the proceedings be stayed and the case be consigned to the record room till the return of the applicant. Against this order the decree -holder went in revision to the High Court of the erstwhile Patiala State which was dismissed. On receipt of record from the High Court the executing Court made another order on 9 -12 -2001 BK. which was virtually the same as the order passed on 2 -11 -1999 BK.

(2.) ON 9 -12 -2006, Mst. Badami respondent, daughter of Muni Lal, decree -holder, applied to the executing Court for being brought on the record in place of her father who had died and for the resumption of the execution proceedings. She alleged that after her father's death there had been litigation between her and other persons regarding the property of her father and the matter had finally been decided in her favour. She also mentioned that the proceedings in the execution were stayed by the Court vide its order dated 9 -12 -2001 BK. She, therefore, prayed that the proceedings which were stayed be revived. The judgment -debtor opposed this application mainly on the grounds (1) that the order of the executing Court dated 2 -11 -99 whereby the proceedings had been stayed was illegal; (2) that the application for revival of the execution proceedings was barred by time; and (3) that the execution application was beyond limitation. The Court framed the following issues:

(3.) IN my opinion there is no force in the contention raised by the appellant. The consigning of execution application to the record room does not terminate execution proceedings. In such a case the application is not disposed of on merits. The proceedings are suspended by an act of the Court and without any fault of the decree -holder. In the present case he (D.H.) agitated against the order slaying the proceedings. In fact in such circumstances the decree -holder has a right to ask the Court to resume the execution proceedings which are interrupted by the intervention of the opposite party. Even after the stay order has ceased, to operate it is not obligatory on the decree -holder to make application to set the execution proceedings in motion. In case any such application is made it is not governed by Art. 181, Limitation Act, as such an application for revival of execution proceedings is not subject to any period of limitation. Even otherwise Art. 181 is not attracted as it applies only to applications made as provided by the Civil Procedure Code.