ORDER G.C. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner obtained a simple money decree for Rs. 102/5/- from the Panchayat Adalat on May 21, 1950. A revision application filed against this decree was dismissed on November 27, 1951 and a writ petition filed against it was dismissed on February 22, 1954. The petitioner thereafter, on December 1, 1955, filed an application for execution of the decree before the Panchayati Adalat, but this application was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on February 3, 1957, he filed a second application for execution. This application was dismissed by the Panchayati Adalat by an order dated August 14, 1957, as being time-barred. The petitioner filed a revision against that order in the Court of the Munsif but the latter has upheld the order of the Panchayati Adalat that the second application for execution was time-barred. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Panchayati Adalat and of the learned Munsif.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Limitation Act was not applicable to the execution proceedings and therefore his application for execution could not be dismissed as time-barred. Section 83 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act provides that in proceedings under the Act the Nyaya Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by of under the Act. It further provides that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and me Indian Limitation Act 1908, shall not apply to any civil, criminal or revenue case in a Nyaya Panchayat except as provided in the Act or as may be prescribed The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 83 the Indian Limitation Act is inapplicable to proceedings under the Act and that there is no other provision in the Act which provides for any period of limitation for making an application for execution. There appears to be considerable force in this argument. It is clear from a plain reading of Section 83 that the Indian Limitation Act will not apply to any proceedings under the Act except as provided in the Act itself or in the rules made thereunder.
Though there are certain provisions, like Section 68 which prescribes limitation for the filing of certain types of suits and Section 89 which prescribes limitation for the making of a revision application, no provision either in the Act or in the rules has been brought to my notice which provides for any period of limitation for filing an application for execution of a decree passed by a Nyaya Panchayat Section 93 of the Act provides for the execution of decrees and states that a decree or order passed by a Nyaya Panchayat shall be executed by it in such manner as may be prescribed. This section does not lay down any period of limitation for making an application for execution. Under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules only Rule 128 has been brought to my notice which deals with execution of decrees. This rule also does not provide for any period of limitation for making an application for execution of a decree. There is thus no provision in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act which prescribes any limitation for making an application for execution or which makes any provision of the Indian Limitation Act applicable to applications for execution of decrees passed under the Act. There being no such provision in the Act and the Limitation Act not being applicable, the application for execution filed by the petitioner could not be dismissed as time-barred. The execution application filed by the petitioner was a competent application and the Panchayati Adalat and tie Munsif have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in refusing to execute the same.
3. I accordingly allow this application, quash the orders passed by the Panchayati Adalat and by the learned Munsif and remand the case back to the Panchayati Adalat with the direction that it shall entertain the application for execution and execute the decree in accordance with law The petitioner shall have his costs from respondent No. 3.