1999 (9) TMI 952 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Starting point of limitation u/Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Enforceability of a decree.
3. Applicability of the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit."

Summary:

1. Starting Point of Limitation u/Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The primary issue was whether the period of limitation u/Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, starts from the date of the decree or from the date when the decree is actually drawn up and signed by the judge. The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation runs from the date of the decree and not from the date when the decree is actually drawn up and signed by the Judge. The Court emphasized that a decree is deemed to come into existence immediately upon the pronouncement of the judgment.

2. Enforceability of a Decree:
The Court clarified that a decree becomes enforceable immediately upon the pronouncement of the judgment, and the delay in drawing up and signing the decree does not render it unenforceable. The Court referred to Order XX Rule 7 C.P.C., which provides that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment. Additionally, Rule 6A of Order XX C.P.C. allows the last paragraph of the judgment to be treated as a decree for the purpose of execution until the decree is drawn up.

3. Applicability of the Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit":
The appellant argued that the delay in drawing up the decree should extend the limitation period based on the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The Court rejected this contention, stating that there must be a nexus between the act of the court and the hardship or prejudice suffered by the party. In this case, the appellant failed to show any such nexus. The Court noted that the appellant could have enforced the decree immediately upon the pronouncement of the judgment and that the delay in drawing up the decree did not cause any prejudice to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the execution petition was barred by limitation, as the period of limitation u/Article 136 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the decree and not from the date when the decree is actually drawn up and signed by the Judge. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.