HANSRAJ Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -judgment debtor, challenging the order Dt. 15/7/2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executing Court') in Execution Case No. 4 of 2002, and the order Dt. 3/11/2010 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Neem Ka Thana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2006. In the instant case, it appears that the respondents -decree holders had filed the suit being No. 25 of 2008 seeking permanent injunction, and the mandatory injunction against the present petitioner and one Mali Ram. The said suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree Dt. 25/1/1989. It appears that thereafter the respondents -decree holders filed the execution proceedings against the petitioner for the execution of the relief granted with regard to the permanent injunction. In the said execution proceedings, the executing Court had framed the issues, and the issue No. 2 was framed as to whether the execution proceedings were barred by limitation. The executing Court vide the order Dt. 15/7/2006 decided the said issue against the petitioner, holding that there was no limitation prescribed for the execution of the decree for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground of non -maintainability. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging both the orders passed by the Courts below.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead evidence with regard to the issue No. 2, which has been decided as a preliminary issue in the execution proceedings. According to him, both the Courts below have committed an error in not holding that the execution proceedings filed by the respondents were barred by limitation.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, it transpires that the issue of limitation has been decided by the executing Court by way of preliminary issue in the execution proceedings. Admittedly, none of the parties had led any evidence with regard to the said issue. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that the said issue No. 2 with regard to limitation shall be decided afresh by the executing Court, along with the other issues at the time of final disposal of the execution petition, after appreciating the evidence, if any, led by the parties. With these observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of. It is directed that proceedings being the very old, the execution proceedings shall be disposed of as early as possible.