Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo

1. Leave granted. This appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court of Bombay, made on January 20, 1997 in Writ Petition 618 2 of 1996.

2. The admitted position is that the respondent No.1. is the owner of the property and earlier a notice was issued to the appellant to vacate the land in question. That order of eviction became final with the confirmation of the order by this Court in a special leave petition. There after, proceedings were initiated for execution. An objection has been raised on the ground that since more than 12 year shave elapsed, the order cannot be implemented. The High Court has pointed out that under Section 21 of the Mamlatdars Court Act, 1906, it has not prescribed any limitation for execution of the orders vide the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Babaji Khandujivs. Kushaba Ramji [8 BombayLaw Reporter (1906) 218].

3. Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in the absence of fixation of rule of limitation, the power can be exercised with in a reasonable time and in the absence of such prescription of limitation, the power to enforce the order is vitiated by error of law. He places reliance on the decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha &rs. Ram Chand &Ors. vs Union of India&Ors; and MohamadKavi 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 Mamalatdars Court Actdoes not prescribe any limitation within which the order needs to be executed. In the absence of any specific limitation provided there under, necessary implication is that the general law of limitation provided in Limitation Act (Act 2 of 1963) stand secluded. The Division Bench, Therefore, has rightly held that no limitation has been prescribed and it can be executed at any time, especially when the law of limitation for the purpose of this appeal is not the re. Where the re isstatutory rule operating in the field, the implied power of exercise of the right within reasonable limitation does not arise. The cited decisions deal with that area and bear no relevance to the facts.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.