Limitation Period For Filing A Petition U/S 47 CPC Is Three Years From Date Of Appearance Of Judgment Debtors: Orissa HC

A Single Bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra observed, “The Petitioners have only stepped into the shoes of the JDrs. Thus, they are bound by the decree to be executed as well as the legal action taken by their predecessors. As such, learned executing Court has committed no error in rejecting CMA No.10 of 2022 filed for restoration of CMA No.8 of 2009 under Section 47 CPC.”

Advocate Gajendranath Rout represented the petitioners, while Advocate Dwarika Prasad Mohanty appeared for the opposite parties.

The trial court had rejected an application filed by the petitioner to restore a suit filed under Section 47 of the CPC which was dismissed for the default of the JDrs. Earlier, the plaintiff had filed for declaration of joint title and confirmation of possession of the Opposite Parties over the suit land and for a permanent injunction against the Defendants.

The petitioners contended that their predecessors' application under Section 47 CPC was dismissed for default, which was beyond their control. They argued that Article 137 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to a proceeding under Section 47 CPC.

The petitioners argued that a petition under Section 47 CPC was dismissed for default by the trial court which was beyond the control of the petitioners. Thus, the Petitioners who stepped into the shoes of JDrs. should not have been prevented from raising an objection with regard to the executability of the decree.

The Court stated that the suit was “hopelessly time-barred” and restoration of an application under Section 47 CPC would serve no purpose.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Kaupin Dhari Mahima Samaj & Ors. v. Satya Mahima Dharma Dham Parichalana Samiti & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Gajendranath Rout

Opposite Parties: Advocate Dwarika Prasad Mohanty

Click here to read/download the Judgment