Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors on 7 May, 1997 Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2695, 1997 AIR SCW 2663, 1997 HRR 509, (1997) 2 RENTLR 90, (1998) 2 LANDLR 260, (1997) 3 MAH LJ 695, (1997) 4 ALLMR 447 (SC), (1997) 4 SCALE 337, (1997) 3 CURCC 16, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 2156, (1997) 8 SUPREME 412, (1997) 3 LAB LN 706, 1997 (6) SCC 73, 1997 SCFBRC 349, 1997 UJ(SC) 2 303, (1997) 5 SUPREME 578, 1997 ALL CJ 2 1292, (1997) 3 CIVLJ 655, (1997) 5 JT 632 (SC), (1998) 1 BOM CR 786 Author: K. Ramaswamy Bench: K. Ramaswamy 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 Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors on 7 May, 1997  1 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. Uttam Namdeo Mahale vs Vithal Deo & Ors on 7 May, 1997  2