Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UTTAM NAMDEO MAHALE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VITHAL DEO & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the order of the
High Court of Bombay,made on January 20, 1997 inWrit
Petition 6182 of 1996.
The admitted position isthat the respondent No.1. is
the owner of the property and earlier anotice was issued to
the appellant to vacate the land in question. That order of
eviction became final with theconfirmation ofthe order by
this Court in a special leave petition. Thereafter,
proceedings were initiated for execution. An objection has
been raised on the ground that since more than 12 yearshave
elapsed, the order cannot be implemented. The High Court has
pointedout that under Section 21 of the Mamlatdar’s Court
Act, 1906, it has not prescribedany limitation for
execution of the orders vide the Division Bench judgment of
the High Courtof Bombay in Babaji Khandujivs. Kushaba
Ramji [8 BombayLaw Reporter (1906) 218].
Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contends
that in the absence of fixation of rule of limitation, the
power can be exercised withina reasonable time and in the
absenceof such prescription of limitation, the power to
enforcethe order is vitiatedby error of law. He places
reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Patel
Raghav Natha &Ors. [(1970) 1 SCR 335]; Ram Chand & Ors. vs
Union of India& Ors.[(1994)1 SCC 44 ]; andMohamadKavi
MohamadAmin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [CA No. 5023/85 decided on
August 22, 1996]. We find no force in the contention. It is
seen that the order of ejectment against the applicant has
become final. Section 21 of the Mamalatdar’s Court Actdoes
not prescribe any limitation within which the order needs to
be executed. In the absence of anyspecific limitation
provided thereunder, necessary implication is that the
generallaw oflimitation provided in Limitation Act (Act 2
of 1963) standsexcluded. The Division Bench, Therefore, has
rightlyheld that no limitation has been prescribed and it
can beexecuted at any time,especially when the law of
limitation forthe purpose ofthis appeal is not there.
Where there isstatutory ruleoperating in the field, the
impliedpower of exercise of the right within reasonable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
limitation does not arise. The citeddecisions dealwith
that area and bear no relevanceto the facts.
The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.