Dr. SABIR ZAMIR SIDDIQUI and 6 others vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and anothers
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an execution application for an ejectment order on the grounds of limitation. The original landlord obtained an ejectment order, which was challenged through various appellate stages, ultimately resulting in the Supreme Court dismissing the tenant's petition for leave to appeal in 1983. The landlord's successors filed an execution application in 1990, which the executing court dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the respondents' conduct—specifically, continuing to deposit rent in court after the stay order had expired to create the impression that the stay was still operative—constituted fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' active concealment of the dismissal of the stay order prevented the appellants from seeking execution within the statutory period. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the executing court to proceed with the execution of the ejectment order.
- Does the continued deposit of rent by a tenant after the expiration of a stay order constitute fraudulent concealment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can an execution application be dismissed as time-barred if the decree holder was prevented from filing it due to the fraudulent conduct of the judgment debtor?
- Is a party entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the opposing party actively misleads them regarding the status of a stay order?
- Section 18, Limitation Act 1908
' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Professor Zahir Ahmed Siddiqui (since dead) the predecessor of the appellants filed an application under the Rent Laws for ejectment of the respondents from the disputed premises which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 11-6-1976. This order was, however, set aside by the first appellate Court by order dated 10-5-1977, and second appeal against the said order was dismissed on 11-6-1977, Civil Petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court which was dismissed through order dated 11-4-1983. It appears that the original owner/landlord died somewhere in 1989 and the appellants, who are his successors, submitted execution application on 19-2-1990. The respondents filed objection petition for the dismissal of the execution application for the reason that it was time-barred. The learned executing Court while accepting the objection petition dismissed the execution application as time barred by order dated 27-7-1991. In High Court the writ petition moved by the appellants to call in question the correctness of the executing Court's judgment, was dismissed through the impugned order.
2. Leave to appeal was granted in these terms:-- ' "Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the writ petition through affidavit as also in reply to the objection petition before the Rent Controller, it was pleaded by the deceased predecessor of the petitioners that he was suffering from paralysis and become bed-ridden and could not pursue the litigation, therefore, when the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by this Court, the respondent fraudulently concealed this fact from the deceased that the same had been dismissed and had been continuously depositing the rent in the Court as ordered by the interim order of this Court in order to further give impression to the deceased that the stay order was still opeiative in order to prevent the deceased from seeking execution of the ejectment order within period of limitation, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act which aspect of the case has not been considered by the High Court, as from the impugned judgment of the High Court, it appears that no notice was taken of the said affidavit and its contents, as such, the application of law was not correctly made to the present case and had the same been considered the execution petition would not have been dismissed as barred by time."
3. The same submissions as had been made at leave granting stage, were repeated before us. The respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte and, therefore, none appeared to represent them.
4. There is no denying the fact that this Court by order dated 30-6-1977, had stayed the execution of the ejectment order and it is borne out from this Court order dated 11-1-1983, that at the time of refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the petition the present appellants, as respondents, were not represented. It is also supported by record that the respondents had all along been depositing the rent to give an impression that the stay order is still operative and as such actively concealed this fact from the present appellants. In these circumstances the application for execution could not legally be termed as time-barred. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct the executing Court to execute the decree/order in accordance with law. No order as to costs.