^ HI6H COURT OF CHHAmSGAW -4T BIL^t.SPUR .4PPLECANTS Judgment debtors Civil RBViS'on No.128 ofZOOa !- Yogendra Rathor age41 years S/o Lote Norayan Bhai & •';•'• u •& 2. 3. 4. •s. Hcam-s Decree Holders Vin"y Rothor age 35 years S/o Late Narayan Bhai Viresh Ra+hor age 26 yers S/o Lnte Narayoui Bhai Rajesh Rathor age 32 years S/o Late Narayan Bhai Ku.Rashmi age 24 ye"rs D/o Late Narayan Bhai .A!l Residence of Jogma! Block, Tikrapara, Bitaspur (C.6.) Vsrsus Smt.Padma Ben aged 60 years W/o Kanji Bhai Kanji Bh"i aged 65 year's S/o heer Jai Bhai Both R/o Jagmal Btock Tikrapara Bilaspur(C.e.) (CTWL RE\/TSION UNDERSECTTON 115 OF THE CODE OFO?C) (SB: Hon'ble M". T.P. SharmQ. J.) Shn Shree Kumar AgniwaL, Ssnioi' counse! with Shri Ashpk Kumor Supta, counsei for the appliccints. Shri B£t>embro;couriseifor Tne iion-appiiecnts. ORALORDER - (Passsd OR 9th July; 2009) By th's revision, the cppliccnts hove challenged the lega!ity and 'proprie+y sfthe order' ciatsd 5.8 2008 pcsssed by the^t Cjvi! Judge CIdss-I, Bilaspur, sn Execut!(Mi Case No.37A/8S •vhereby^l+ie !eerned 4+ Ciyil Judge C!ass-I has dismissed the objection fiied under Section 47 of the Code of i . puo 6uipss30.id uj +uads 31*114. +oi.j+ s+iuiqns OS|D |%.unoo psiMuS"") s+UDOijddo-uou 3i4l. Aq >iS!j-iDa psjij. Suipasoo^d uoi+noaxa 3L|+ j.o aaunnuj+uog so psuiasp 3q JjDqs uoj+nssxa ^oj. uoi+EOjjddc puosas 4.044. s+iuiqns ^auft.^ri^. jasunos pau^DS^ '900S"9'82 uo Buipaaoo^d uoi+nsaxs psjij. SAOLJ S4.uD:»i|ddo-uou+uasajd 8t|+ '+>in03 xsdy at|4. Aq passud >fspd0 •la+j.o puo 9002^52 pa+op ·op.io apiA 4..ino3 xsdy sij.i. Aq apiso +ss sonv ^sapB^d oAijpii^ ^o 4.^^103 4611-1 81)4. j.o ^sp^o 3i|4 4-n^ i|S3po*i(j oXiipp^ J.G 4.>4no^ L|6)|^ 3i|4- j-o ^isp>40 2>i|4. AC| ^G p®tood£|p&OM s+UDOijddo-uou 344. j.o 6uip833o.id uo-i.j.roaxs UD+Dtj4. S+i'uiqnS pUD S4.Ul»i|ddu-UOU 3L|+ j-u j.iOL|3C| UO p3+<JOuQHS £i pSli&HQUii ^itfp.40 3^4- pUS^ h<tfM^'u ^M^- Lt0 S •SjqDUjD+uiOtU +ou si +jno^ \w^ 3141. s^oj.sq Suipusd uoi+roaxs uo puo pajjoq 3Uii+ A|ssa|ado4 si aa^sap 3141. j.o s^oaA gi js+j.o pajjj. uoi+nssxs +ussa^d +01)4. s+iiuqns uStj+.inj. lasunoo P^u·io^^ '(»+:?Vu 4-.i0i|s Ui) 596^ '+s'V uoij-o+iiJUi-j 3L|+ j.o 9gi S|3!4.^V J.O SUIJS+ Ui pSd^iDq aiUj4.sr ^^iH'n 900Z'9'82 "° Suipaaso^d uoi+n3sxs puooss psp.j. SAoq s+uoojiddo-upu 3ij+ '+dno^ xady stj+ j.o dap^io aL|+ ua+j.c puo Ooog/Tegg-oN |Dsddy jtAi^ ui 9002'17"S2 ps+op dapjo spiA 4.^1003 x-ady si+j. Aq apiso +as SOM LjsapiM<j DAtjpa'^' j.o 4.^003 ijSi^ ai+i. j.o ^ap^o 31^ 'i^sapi^ij oALjpow ^.o +^no3 qSij-i SLjj. Aq passod ^5-5-9 pa+Dp ^ap^o apiA psssiiUsjp SOm l|31t|A»^g'g'gl; UO pSjij. SOM 6uip3«130dd UOl+nOSXS pUO yfigl'g'lg uo passod sow sa^ssp X||oui5i^o 4.01(4. s+ituqns s+uoojjddo a^+ uoj. |asuno3 pauiios-j •^ "4..TtO^ |OU4. 81(4. ^.o p^ooaj puo psuSndUii aapdO aLj4. pasnuad puo s+uBOijddo-uou 8q+ >ioj. |ssuno3 'Ddquiag-rg Mtjg puo s+un3i|ddn si)+ >ioj. |ssuno3 'D+dng ^DUin)j puouy UL|g Lj4.jM ]asuno3 vioiuag 'joiniwSy joiun)j asdijS i>iL|g paujDaj pjosLj aAiOLi j; -g -apo^Sbj+.j.og'ii; uoi+sag ij4.jM 83uopd03oo ui aiqouio+upiU Si uoisiAa^ 8144. 'ajoj.s^3ij4. 'j.o pssodsjp A||DUI^ aq p|noM+^no.) pu+ 344. a.ioj.aqSuipuad 6ujpas3ojdsi4i. uat|+ 'pswiojjo Si UOJSIASJ S4+ j-i +044. s+iiuqns S4.UD3i|ddo 944. >ioj. jasunoo paujDS-i -g •9Q02'9 82 Pa+op uoj+DOiiddo uoi^nasxa stj4. j.o ]oss!iii5ip t-j^OJ. S+UIOijddB Stj4. j.O ^jOM3i1 uo (»aP°.?n +^OMS ui) 8061 'a'InP830-'d li.Ai3 stay of the executlor! shall be excluded under Section 15 (1) of tfte .4ct. Lear-ned couBse! placed reliance o" the decisiori of the Apex Court in -t+ie mattsr- cf Ansndila! v. Rcen Naraia and othsrs in ii.'hich it has beeri held by the Apex Court that time spent on the ground ofpartia! stay of the execution shall be excluded under Section 15 (1) of the Limitat'on Act. Lenrned counsel fur+iier- piaced rel.'ance on the decision of •ri'ie High Court of Madhya Pr-adesh in the iTicttar'of Uir,"ao Khan and another v. Waheed Khca in which ithas been heid by the High Court of Madhya Pmdesh that if the executlon is suspended for" no fault of the decree-hofder, then it can be revived on application by the decree-ho'der'. 6. The Code of Civi! Procedure was amended by Act 104 of 1976 and new Ru!e 105 md 106 relating to the hearing of application for" execution proceeding and setting aside order's passed ex parte has been added which reads as under;- Order XXI Rule 105. Hearing of apptication.-(l) The Court, Defore which an application under any of the foregoing rules of this Order is pending, may fix u duy for the hearing of the apphcation- (2)Where on the day fixedoronaiiyo-riierdaytowhich the hearing moiy be adjourned the applicant does not appear when the case is cailed on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the "Dnlication be dismissed. 'rr (3) Where the Qpphcanfappears and the opposite pa>'ty to whom the notice has been issued by the Court does notapDear, the Court rnay hear the tippiicction ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit. Explanation.-An app'ication referred to in sub-rule (I) includes a claim or ob jection made under rule 58. Rute 106. Setting aside orders passed ex parte, etc.- (l) the Wpiicant.against whom an order is mad'e under sub-rute (2) of ruie 105 or the opposite party againstwhom an order is pcxssed ex parte undsr sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-ruie (l) of rule 23, may apply to the Court toset aside the order/and if he sotisfies the CourtthattherBWassufficientcausefor'his non-appeanmce tAIR19S4S(:1383 E130TILR1962 'u.". whom the application was called pn for hearing, the Court shall set e^ide theorder- or such Terms os to costs. or otherwise as it thinks fit, ond shal! appoint a day for the further hearing of the application. (2) No order shall be made on an application under sub-rule(l) unless riotice of the cyplication hcis been served on the o1+ier parTy. (3) .An cyplication under sub-ru!e (1) shc>!l be made within tiiirty days from the date of theorder, or where, in the case of an ex parte order, the notice was not duly served, within thirty days from the date when applicoint had knowledge of the order. 7. Admittadly, after the order of the Apex Court, the present non-applicants haye not filed an application for continuance of the executjon or reviyal of anyexecution preyiously dism'ssed or disposed of, but they haye fi!ed new application for executiori in which jt has been specifically mentioned that "'g^ VK q? g<t?'s-d1 ^TSR 'ift uii ^t t". 8. In the case of Umrao Khan and another (supra), •t+ie High Couct of Madhya Pradesh has held thot an execution is suspended for n6 fault of the decree-holder, in reality it remains pending and can be reyiyed on opplication by the decr'ee-holder, but m this case, the non-applicants/decree holders haye not filed a"y application for revival or continucmce of the execution proceeding- In the iight of special provision for setting aside the disntissa! of first application for execution in accordance with Or-der XXI P.ule 106 of the Code, second execution application is not maintainable. 9. In this case, decree-holder has not filed any applicotion for se+ting aside the order of dismissal of the execution prpceeding or any application for reyiya! or con+inuance of the execytion proceeding after- the order of the Apex Court. Leiarned trio! Court has a!so not possed any order of continu&n.ce or reyival of the execution proceedin9, inter alia, lecrned trial Court has specifical!y mentioned in the order impugned that first application for execution was filed wi-Hiin 12 years; therefore, subsequentapplicationfi.1ed on 28.6.2006 was not bar-red by limitation. The non-applica.nts haye not fited any (yplication for reviva! or continuance of the execution pr'oceeding but hnye specifically filed second execution application which is not mn'!"tainab!e in the light of Order XXI Ru!e 105 and 106 of the Code. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. The reyision petition is allowed. Or-der impugned is hereby set aside. No order' as to costs. Pendingapplicatipns, ifany, stond disposedof. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge \1- -^-^