Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors
- SCC(1997) 6 SCC 73
- Neutral1997 INSC 493
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2695
- SCR[1997] Supp (1) SCR 257
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a statute prescribes a specific procedure for execution of orders but does not itself provide any limitation period, the general law of limitation is excluded by necessary implication, and the order may be executed at any time without reference to any period of reasonable time. The doctrine that powers should be exercised within a reasonable time applies only in the absence of a statutory rule operating in the field; where such a statutory rule exists, even if it does not expressly fix a limitation period, no implied obligation to exercise the power within a reasonable time arises.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 limitation does not arise. The citeddecisions dealwith that area and bear no relevanceto the facts.
The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free