1961 (9) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Decree enforcement post-repeal: Court upholds rights under old laws, allows revival of application.

Government of Rajasthan and Ors. Versus Sangram Singh and Ors.

The court held that Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act continued to govern the enforcement of the decree post-repeal, as the new law did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act post-repeal.2. Applicability of Article 183 of the Indian Limitation Act to a decree passed by the former Bikaner High Court.3. Continuation of Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act post-repeal by the Part 'B' States (Laws) Act, 1951.4. Revival of the previous execution application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act Post-Repeal:The court examined whether Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act continued to govern the enforcement of a decree after the enactment of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950, which repealed the Bikaner Limitation Act. The court noted that the law of limitation is generally procedural and has retrospective effect unless it destroys a pre-existing right without notice. The court referenced several precedents, emphasizing that a new limitation law should not destroy a litigant's remedy if no breathing time is provided between the enactment and enforcement of the new law. The court concluded that Article 165 of the Bikaner Limitation Act continued to govern the enforcement of the decree, as the Rajasthan Ordinance did not provide sufficient transitional provisions to protect the decree-holder's rights.2. Applicability of Article 183 of the Indian Limitation Act to a Decree Passed by the Former Bikaner High Court:The court considered whether Article 183 of the Indian Limitation Act, which applies to decrees of courts established by Royal Charter, could apply to a decree passed by the former Bikaner High Court. The court discussed the historical context of chartered High Courts in British India and the sovereign powers of the rulers of Bikaner. It was noted that the Bikaner High Court was established by royal proclamations, which had the force of law. The court concluded that the term 'Royal Charter' in Article 183 could be interpreted to include the proclamations issued by the sovereign rulers of Bikaner, thereby making Article 183 applicable to the decree in question.3. Continuation of Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act Post-Repeal by the Part 'B' States (Laws) Act, 1951:The court examined whether Article 165 of the Bikaner State Limitation Act would continue to apply after the enactment of the Part 'B' States (Laws) Act, 1951, which extended the Indian Limitation Act to Part B States and repealed the Rajasthan Ordinance. The court noted that Section 6 of the Part 'B' States (Laws) Act provided for the preservation of rights and remedies acquired under the repealed laws. The court concluded that the decree-holder's right to enforce the decree under Article 165 of the Bikaner Limitation Act was preserved by the savings clause in Section 6 of the Part 'B' States (Laws) Act.4. Revival of the Previous Execution Application:The court considered whether the present application for the enforcement of the decree could be treated as a revival of the previous execution application, which was consigned to the record at the decree-holder's request. The court noted that the previous application was dismissed at the decree-holder's instance and could not be revived. However, in another case where the previous execution application was consigned to the record due to an impediment (a pending suit), the court held that the present application could be treated as a revival of the previous application, as the impediment had been removed.Conclusion:The court set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sikar, which dismissed the execution application as time-barred, and directed the judge to proceed with the other objections of the judgment-debtor. In another related appeal, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the present application for enforcement was a revival of the previous application consigned to the record due to an impediment.