RAM ABHILAKH Vs. RAM JAS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-10
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 12,1965

RAM ABHILAKH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM JAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KARAM CHAND VS. GUR DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
BHUKAN LAL VS. ISHWAR DAYAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS order shall govern Civil Revisions Nos. 875 and 876 of 1962 both by Ram Abhilakh, decree-holder, against the order, dated 30-8-1962 of the Munsif of Gyanpur, holding that in view of Section 42, C. P. C. he had, while executing the decree passed by the Nyaya Panchayat, same powers as the Nyaya Panchayat, and could not execute the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property. He consequently dismissed the application of Ram Abhilakh for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property.
(2.)SECTION 64 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act enumerates) the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat in civil cases. A perusal thereof shall make it clear that the Nyaya Panchayat has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit for the recovery of immovable property or for the value thereof. Similarly the Nyaya Panchayat has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of money due on a contract in respect of an immovable property. In short, the Nyaya Panchayat has me jurisdiction to entertain suits with regard to movable property, and not immovable property.
Though the jurisdiction of the Court for trial of suits may be limited, the legislature can give unlimited jurisdiction to the same Court for the execution of the decree passed in accordance with the law. In other words, unless there be a provision to the contrary there can be no difficulty in such Court executing the decree against properties in respect of which a suit could not have been entertained by it. Whether the Court executing the decree has such a power shall thus depend upon by the provisions of the law applicable.

Section 93 of the Act lays down the mode of execution of decrees or orders passed by Nyaya Panchayat. A decree or order passed by Nyaya Panchayat is to be executed by it in such manner as may be prescribed. The rule so prescribed is contained in R. 128 of the U P. Panchayat Raj Rules (to be referred hereinafter as the Rules). However, if the property of the defendant or opposite party is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat passing me decree or order, it may, in the manner prescribed, transfer the decree or order for execution to the Nyaya Panchayat within whose jurisdiction the property may be situated and if mere be no Nyaya Panchayat, then to the Court of the Munsif, or Sub-divisional Officer, as the pase may be, within whose jurisdiction it may be situated. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 93 also a Nyaya Panchayat can forward the decree or order to the Munsif, or Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, in case it finds any difficulty in executing the decree or order, and on the transfer of the decree the Munsif, or Sub-Divisional Officer, can execute the same as if it were a decree or order passed by him.

(3.)EVEN though in Section 64 differentiation has been made between 'movable' and 'immovable' property, the general word 'property' is used in Section 93. Section 93 thus places no such restriction on the execution of decree and it can be executed against any property including an immovable property even though no suit with regard to immovable property can be entertained by the Nyaya Panchayat.
In view of Rule 128 of the Rules the Nyaya Panchayat shall be unable to execute the decree unless the judgment-debtor voluntarily pays the amount or the decree and the costs of execution. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 128 prescribes the fee payable for an application for execution of the decree. Sub-rule (2) lays down the procedure to be followed by the Nyaya Panchayat which passed the decree. In case property of the defendant or opposite party against whom the execution application has been presented is not situated outside the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat, it has to issue a notice of the defendant or opposite party requiring him to comply with the decree within 30 days of the receipt of notice, and if the decree is not complied with within the said time, or such further time not exceeding three months as the Nyaya Panchayat may deem fit to allow, it (Nyaya Panchayat) has to forward the decree for execution in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the Act. Sub-rule (3) lays down the mode of execution where the property of the defendant or opposite party against whom the execution application has been presented, is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat. In such cases, the Nyaya Panchayat which passed the decree can itself proceed in the manner laid down in Sub-rule (2), or transfer the decree for execution as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Act. Where the decree has been transferred to another Nyaya Panchayat or to the Munsif, a notice to the defendant or opposite party in the manner provided under Sub-rule (2) has to be issued in the first instance, and if the decree is not complied with within the period specified in the notice, or within such further time not exceeding three months as may be allowed the transferee Nyaya Panchayat has to act under Sub-section (2) of Section 93 of the Act, that is, to forward me decree to the Munsif for execution as if it were a decree passed by him. But if the Nyaya Panchayat passing the decree had transferred it to the Munsif, the latter shall execute the decree as if it were passed by him.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.