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.