9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 21 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906 regarding the limitation for execution of orders.
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the High Court of Bombay's order in a writ petition. The respondent, the owner of the property, had obtained an order of eviction against the appellant, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court earlier. The appellant objected to the execution of the order, arguing that more than 12 years had passed. The High Court, referring to a previous judgment, noted that Section 21 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act does not specify any limitation for execution of orders. The appellant contended that without a specific limitation, the power to enforce the order is vitiated by error of law. However, the Court held that in the absence of a prescribed limitation, the general law of limitation under the Limitation Act does not apply. The Court emphasized that since the order of ejectment had become final, it could be executed at any time as no specific limitation was provided under Section 21. The Court clarified that when a statutory rule is in place, the implied power to exercise the right within a reasonable limitation does not arise. The cited decisions by the appellant were deemed irrelevant to the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
