MOHAMMAD GULAM RABBANI Vs. BANKIPORE HARI SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against the order of the Court below holding that the petition filed by the opposite party on 13-7-72 under Order 21. Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable. It may be stated that there is no dispute that the alleged obstruction had taken place in July. 1971, nearly one year before the filing of the application dated the 13th July, 1972. The court below has held that although the application aforesaid is barred by time under Article 129 of the Indian Limitation Act, the said application is nevertheless maintainable as the Court has power to condone the delay under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The opposite party obtained a decree against opposite party No. 2 for his eviction from the shop premises. The decree was being executed. When the Nazir of the Civil Court went to deliver possession there was obstruction by the petitioner. The Nazir, therefore, reported the matter to the court on the 18th of July. 1971. In the report he stated that the delivery of possession could not be effected as there was no order to break open the lock. He also sought direction from the Court. It will be necessary to give some further facts but not at this stage as I propose to deal with some legal aspects first. I will refer to the relevant facts later.

(3.) So far as the petition dated the 13th of July. 1972 is concerned it cannot be disputed that the application has been filed beyond the period prescribed in Article 129 of the Indian Limitation Act. 1963. The question, therefore, is whether the court has power to condone the delay in filing of the application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure under any provision of the Limitation Act, Civil Procedure Code or the inherent powers."