MOHD YUNUS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a writ application, these petitioners pray for quashing Annexures 4 and 5. Annexure 4 contains an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and Annexure 5 contains an order passed by the Commissioner in revision.

(2.) The relevant facts are those : -

(3.) On these facts, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenges the validity of the impugned orders on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rup Kuer and others v. The State of Bihar an others (1978 Bihar Bar Council Journal 282). In that case the Division Bench has held that if a suit for redemption is barred by limitation then in that case an application under Sec, 12 of the Act is not maintainable. The present case can easily be distinguished from the above Division Bench case. In the present case, the heirs of the mortgagors brought a title suit for redemption against the heirs of the mortgagee. The matter ultimately came to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 994 of 1956. This Court by its judgment dated 8th May, 1959 (vide Annexure '1'), was pleased to uphold the decree of redemption passed by the trial Judg in the title suit. After passing of the final decree by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 994 of 1956, the mortgagors decree-holders did not put the decree in execution as required by Art. 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. According to Art. 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, a decree is required to be put into execution within three years from the date of the final decree or order of the appellate Court. It is an admitted position in the present case that the decree was not at all put into execution by the mortgagors decree holders.