M.THAMBAN NAIR Vs. P.V. MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitions are filed by the Judgment Debtors/respondents in E.P. 101/10 in O.P. 216/04 and E.P. No. 102/10 in O.P. 215/04 respectively in the file of CDRF, Kasargod. The orders sought to be revised is the one dated 16.11.2011 directing to issue a non bailable warrant to the J.Ds It is the contention of the counsel for Revision Petitioners that the original orders in the O.P.s of the Forum were not appealed against. The orders in O.Ps are dated 27.1.2004 and 5.11.2005 respectively. According to the revision petitioners they have paid certain amounts thereafter and the matters were amicably settled. It is also contented that the Revision Petitions have been filed under order 21 Rule 37 CPC and order 21 Rules 38 and 40 of CPC to arrest and commit the Decree Debtor to civil prison. . It is contended that the above provisions are not applicable with respect to the proceedings under the CP Act. It is also contended that as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Criminal procedure cord, the criminal court is not empowered to take cognizance of an offence after 3 years if it the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 years. In the instant case the maximum sentence that can be awarded under Section 27(1) of the C.P. Act is 3 years and hence the application for execution is barred by limitation. We find that incorrect quoting of a provision is not a reason to reject the application especially in matters under the C.P. Act wherein strict pleadings are not to be insisted. The contention that the application is barred by limitation also cannot be upheld in view of the fact that Section. 468 CRPC is not applicable with receipt to the proceedings under Section 27 of the C.P. Act which is confined to the execution of the order of the fora . The proceedings before the Forum are of a civil nature and the period of limitation for execution is 12 years. The Forum has been empowered with the powers of the Judicial First Class Magistrate only to see that the orders of the Forum are executed and not intended to punish the decree debtor. In the result, we find that both the above contentions are devoid of merit. There is no scope for admitting revision petitions. Thus the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine. The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.