SITA RAM Vs. MAHADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a request made by Mr. H. N. Mehtani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, the present petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is a decree-holder. A decree for possession dated January 31, 1976 was passed in his favour by the trial Court. The defendants/Judgment-debtors filed Regular First Appeal No. 482 of 1977 before this Court. Later on, because of the amendment in Punjab Courts Act and the jurisdiction of the District Judge having been enhanced, the aforesaid first appeal was transferred to District Judge for disposal. Vide judgment and decree dated May 26, 1980, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. A Regular Second Appeal No. 1578 of 1980 was filed by the defendants before this Court. On July 18, 1980, by way of an interim order, this Court stayed the dispossession of the defendants. However, finally the Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court on October 23, 1984. It appears from the record that a Special Leave Petition filed by the defendants also failed before the Apex Court, when the same was dismissed on March 31, 1994.

(3.) The decree-holder filed an execution petition on June 15, 1994, seeking execution of the decree. In the execution petition, the judgment-debtors filed an objection petition. The main objection taken by the judgment-debtors was qua limitation. It was maintained by the judgment-debtors that since the original decree had been passed by the trial Court on January 31, 1976, therefore, the execution petition filed by the decree-holder on June 15, 1994 was barred by limitation.