A.B. Pal, J.
1. In all the above civil revision petitions, the same question in similar factual premises having arisen, I propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.
2. The background facts in brief are as follows:
One Akhil Chandra Ghosh, the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners instituted several suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein which were decreed on contest or ex parte in his favour. The said suits were decreed on different dates between 1961 to 1966. No execution proceeding was, however, instituted within the prescribed period of limitation either by Akhil Chandra Ghosh or after his demise, his legal heirs. The execution proceedings were, however, instituted in 1989 after a period of more than 23 years by the legal heirs of Akhil Chandra Ghosh with a prayer for extending the period of limitation under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned executing court refused to extend the period of limitation and consequently rejected the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by such rejection, they filed four review applications which came to be decided by the impugned judgments and orders in the aforementioned civil revision petitions Nos. 4of 1999, 5 of 1999, 6 of 1999 and 7 of 1999. In other three Civil Revisions Nos. 8 of 1999, 9 of 1999 and 38 of 2000, the petitioners herein, instead of seeking review of the orders before the executing court directly put under challenge the orders whereby the said court rejected the prayer under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act.
3. It was argued before the executing court that the petitioners came to discover that their eldest brother Nani Gopal Ghosh being won over by the judgment-debtors for personal gains did not institute any execution proceeding for recovery, of possession end because of this collusive act, the said proceeding could not be initiated within time. According to the petitioners, their elder brother Nani Gopal Ghosh was entrusted with the duty of looking after the legal proceedings in respect of the properties left behind by their father, but he betrayed the faith by not taking any step for instituting execution proceeding and, therefore, these facts justified extension of the period of limitation under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act.
4. The respondents herein contested the review petitions and the petitions under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act before the learned executing court contending, inter alia, that the story of Nani Gopal Ghosh being won over by the respondents has been concocted by the petitioners in order to illegally derive benefit of Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act. According to the respondents, the review petitions and the petitions for extension of limitation were filed in collusion between the brothers in order to derive benefits illegally after the rights under the decree has been lost to them by efflux of time. It has further been contended that on 9.2.1965 all the legal heirs of Akhil Chandra Ghosh jointly executed and registered a power of attorney empowering Nani Gopal Ghosh and Panna Lal Ghosh, one of the petitioners herein, for management of the properties left by Akhil Chandra Ghosh and, therefore, Panna Lal Ghosh can in no way apportion the entire blame on Nani Gopal Ghosh alone to seek benefit of Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act.
5. Learned court below after careful appreciation of the evidence, on record came to hold that under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act, the court has jurisdiction to extend the period for execution of a decree only if the execution of the decree within the period of limitation is prevented by fraud by the judgment debtors. But in the petitions seeking extension under Section 17(2) of the Limitation Act, no particulars of fraud as required under order VI, Rule 4 of CPC were given. In view of the materials on record, the said court found it difficult to take a view that there was any fraud on the part of the judgment-debtors which prevented the petitioners from instituting the execution proceeding within time. The entire allegation on the contrary was apportioned to Nani Gopal Ghosh, one of the decree-holders, and in the absence of particulars about fraud by judgment debtors, learned trial court refused to extend the benefit of the Section 17(2) of the said Act.
6. The jurisdiction of this court in revision is limited to the question of jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone. Even an error of law or fact by the court below cannot be interfered with unless it amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction which has been vested in the court or exercise of jurisdiction which has not been vested or wrong exercise of jurisdiction which has been vested. Upon perusal of the judgments impugned in the above noted cases refusing to review the judgments or allowing the prayer for extending the period of limitation, i do not find any reason to take a view that the court below has committed any error on question of jurisdiction calling for interference by this court.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, all these revision petitions being devoid of any merit stand dismissed. No cost.