[deleted](Compromise decree) DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, and physical possision has been given JDR... (From aggrement of sale.This compromise decree) 30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court, for registration of the sale deed, Basing on the said compromise decree, the MRO after collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Subregistrar,has issued a certificate, [deleted] After issuing the above certificate, the petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Authority claiming that the MRO has not given any notice before issuing the said certificate and also the MRO has no jurisdiction to entertain the said case.The RDO opinioned that since it is a decree passed by a civil court and that the MRO has rightly passed the said order and hence there is no need to middle with the orders of the lower court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. [deleted] As against the orders of RDO, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present Revision. After due enquiry, the Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed the orders passed by the below revisional authorities. of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattdar Pass [deleted]. As against the said orders of joint Collector, the Revision Petitioners/defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the orders of below authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition. In its orders, the High Court has disclosed that the plea of not issuing notice cannot be raised at this point of time and the revisional authorities have rightly passed the orders as per the Act. [deleted] As against the said order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In this, the Division Bench has quashed all the orders passed below authorities and also set aside the orders of the High Court, Single Judge. SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiff preferred this SLP and the SLP is Dismissed on 13/10/2015 Q1. Can i go to the lower court and File EP on compromise decree of 1985 and invoke the limitation act section 14 . get the exemption of the time spent From MRO TO Supreme court.?
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Dear Client,
Remedy under section 14 is limited to wrong forum limitation. Where as your case is decided/dismissed on merit and not for lack of jurisdiction.
Show orders to advise precisely.
WELL, filling u/s 14 won`t have adverse consequence, so u can try but make sure Compromise decree dated [deleted] is not quashed by order of DB.
finding of division bench (ret appeal) compromise decree is not a document for filing an application before MRO. and Supreme court said no grounds to interfear case dissmissed. now the the division bench order is final
If the said litigation was for same cause of action and same subject matter then you can do that as a result of section 14 of limitation Act.
As per section 14 of limitation act,"Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. —
(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction."
And what Compromise decree says.
This mean compromise decree is still effective. still it`s a matter of Limitation for filling execution.
For filing Execution Petition Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is strictly not applicable because the Execution Petition should be filed within the time-period as originally fixed under the Enactments under which relief is granted and failing which the litigants/Decree-Holder in the eyes of law had exhausted his lawful remedies.
U can try.
1. Yes, since the parties were exploring legal recourse the limitation of 12 will not run in this case and hence the EP can be filed in the trial court.
2. Since the order of division bench becomes final the comprise decree is liable for execution at this stage.
You can file execution petition in lower court
2) time taken during legal proceedings is excluded
You can take out execution proceedings as advised herein above
Q1. Can i go to the lower court and File EP on compromise decree of 1985 and invoke the limitation
act section 14 . get the exemption of the time spent From MRO TO Supreme court.?
In my opinion, you can approach civil court with an EP even at this stage.
In fact you should have done that in the initial stage itself when the judgment debtor did not comply with the compromise decree instead you have chosen the route of revenue department, as a mater of fact the revenue department do not hav exhaustive powers in this regard.
Your EP may not be barred by ,limitation since you had already initiated process for execution of the decree and the same had been going on till this date.
you can give a justification on the same basis and dont file any petition under section 5 of limitation act seeking to condone the delay for filing this EP.
finding of division bench (ret appeal) compromise decree is not a document for filing an application before MRO. and Supreme court said no grounds to interfear case dissmissed. now the the division bench order is final
The findings of the division bench is correct.
You did a mistake by approaching MRO in the initial stage itself maybe due to some misguidance by somebody
Dear Sir,
As per history furnished by you may start second litigation and you will succeed.
Hi,
You may approach as you said.
Q1. Can i go to the lower court and File EP on compromise decree of 1985 and invoke the limitation
act section 14 . get the exemption of the time spent From MRO TO Supreme court.?
The time that has been wasted in the litigation can be exempted by the court and as such you may now file the case
Regards
The Order dt.07.02.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WA No.1812/2001, the main point for consideration was that a Compromise Decree can be treated as a Sale Deed for the purpose of Section 5-A of the Act and the Hon’ble High Court held in negative, holding that under Section 5-A, the Compromise Decree could not have been validated, in the absence of execution of Sale Deed, pursuant to the Compromise Decree passed in EP No.58/1984. Even the respondents took the same stand before the Hon’ble High Court, without disputing the compromise decree passed in EP No.58/1984. Even the DB Order is not clear it should have told the remedy weather to go to lower court and execute the EP or any other remedy based on the compromise decree
That is not the case, you have to exhaust an appropriate remedy.
Regards
You can file miscellaneous application in the said proceedings for clarity of the said order in sc.
You should take out execution proceedings based on compromise decree
The courts will pass decree and judgments as per the pleadings and the relief prayed for.
It becomes your duty to follow up with further processes as per law.
If you are not knowing the further process, then you should have taken the advise of an advocate for follow up actions.
Compromise decree cannot be considered as a sale deed, hence the high court has rightly rejected stating in the absence of sale deed the compromise decree cannot be validated.
show orders.
my lawyer filed two petitions EA 744 to open EP 58/84 and EA 745 to execute the sale deed of the second compromise decree for 12 acres In the city civil court where this compromise decree executed. after the supreme court order in 2015. The judge had dismissed the case on the grounds the petitioner/decree holder is not bonafide in prosecuting the proceeding. Reasoning of the judge. The Petitioner/decree holder did not even state as to why he has chosen to go before MRO(mandal revenue officer) though there was a specific clause in the Order/decree "that in case the judgement debtors did not execute the register sale deed in his favour he shell be at liberty to get executed the same through the COURT" for section 14 limitation act our lawyer marked these judgements Ghasi Rams case (1998) 6 SCC200 MP Steel corporation vs commissioner of central excise. judgement debtors Ketan V. Parekh vs Special Director,Dir.Of ... on 29 November, 2011 MY LAWYER TOLD IN THE ARGUMENTS THAT IN THE MEANTIME THE GOVERNMENT OF AP HAVE AMENDED THE ROR ACT. AND A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO REGULARISE THE UN-REGISTERED SALES U/S 5-A OF THE A.P RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTEDAR PASSBOOK ACT 1971 AND RULES 1989 SECTION 5-A OF THE ROR ACT PROVIDES REGULARIZATION OF CERTAIN ALIENATIONS OR OTHER TRANSFERS OF LANDS WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS "NOT WITH STANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN THE ACT THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 THE REGISTRATION ACT 1908 OR ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. WHERE A PERSON IS AN OCCUPANT BY VIRTUE OF AN ALIENATION OR TRANSFER MADE OR EFFECTED OTHER WISE THAN BY REGISTERED DOCUMENT THE ALIENEE OR TRANSFEREE MAY WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. APPLY TO MRO FOR A CERTIFICATE DECLARING THAT SUCH ALIENATION OR TRANSFER IS VALID. q1. whether the good faith /due diligence/bona fide decided on what factors? q2. Can you tell me how my case is not having good faith /bona fide ? q3 My lawyer told me to file revision in the high court
1) you should have in your application stated the reasons why he went to MRO
2) mentioned the amendment in AP which permitted you to apply to MRO
3)it is necessary to peruse your application and affidavit executed by you to advice further
4) file revision before HC
Yes ho ahead and file a revision.
the reason for saying that the suit has not been filed in good faith is not enough
I am hopeful that you will get an order in revision
1. This is a question law and not based on good faith, the orders of the court are very clear while dismissing the petition filed by you.
2. Why do you insist on good faith or bonafide when you claim to have a decree in your favor
3. You may follow the advise of your lawyer who is the person knowing the facts based on the ground reality.