UMA MISHRA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed by the petitioner decree holder is directed against the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by Munsif -I, Dhanbad whereby he has allowed the objection petition filed by the judgment -debtor under Section 47 of the CPC and dismissed the execution case being Execution Case No. 21/05 holding that Execution case being barred by limitation is not maintainable.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 5/96 in the Court of Munsif, Dhanbad for declaration that plaintiff is entitled to appointment of his sons in the defendant/Company as land looser under rehabilitation scheme. The aforesaid suit was decreed by Munsif -I, Dhanbad against the respondent -Bharat Coking Coal Limited and direction was is, sued for giving employment to at least one son of the plaintiff. Defendant -respondent, aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 11.10.2002 filed Title Appeal, which was ; eventually dismissed by District Judge, cum -Fast Track Court V, Dhanbad in terms f of Judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002., During the pendency of the appeal the. plaintiff -decree holder died and in his place present petitioners were substituted by order dated 30.8.2002 in the said Title Appeal, Petitioners, thereafter, filed execution case being Execution Case No. 9/02 for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 5/96 and affirmed in Title Appeal No. 12/99. The respondents -judgment debtor raised objection against the maintainability. of the aforesaid execution case and the Executing Court by order dated 26.2.2004. dismissed the Execution Case as not maintainable. Petitioners then challenged the. said order by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being WPS No. 2626/2004. The said application was, therefore, dismissed by this Court, i Petitioners then again filed execution application which was registered as Execution Case No. 21/05. In that execution case the respondent - judgment debtor filed objection under Section 47 of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the~eXeeution case. The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the execution case in terms of order dated 21.2.2006.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.