9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the execution petition filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. 2. When did the decree become enforceable under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Interpretation of the decree and its enforceability. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the execution petition filed by the appellant is barred by limitation: The primary issue in this appeal is to determine if the execution petition filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. The High Court answered affirmatively, leading the decree-holder to challenge the order. The decree-holder contended that the period of 12 years should be computed from 1973, when the judgment-debtor complied with the condition of measurement and demarcation, making the execution petition filed on 19.4.1980 within time. However, the appellate court and the High Court held that the decree became enforceable on 23.9.1966, the date by which the decree-holder had deposited the balance consideration, thus making the execution petition time-barred. 2. When did the decree become enforceable under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of 12 years for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The critical question is whether the decree became enforceable on 23.9.1966, when the judgment-debtor was supposed to measure and demarcate the land, or in 1973, when the judgment-debtor actually did so. The Supreme Court clarified that the decree became enforceable on 23.9.1966, as the decree-holder was required to deposit the balance sale price by that date, and the judgment-debtor was directed to measure and demarcate the land by the same date. The Court held that the decree was not conditional upon the judgment-debtor's compliance with the measurement and demarcation. 3. Interpretation of the decree and its enforceability: The decree directed the judgment-debtor to measure and demarcate the land by 23.9.1966 and the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale price by the same date. The execution of the sale deed was to follow these actions. The Court emphasized that a decree typically becomes enforceable immediately after the judgment is pronounced, unless it is contingent upon a specific event or condition. In this case, the decree was not conditional or contingent, and the decree-holder could have sought the court's help to enforce the decree if the judgment-debtor failed to comply by 23.9.1966. The Court cited precedents, including W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. Vs. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd., to support this interpretation. The Supreme Court concluded that the decree was enforceable immediately after 23.9.1966, and the decree-holder's failure to execute the decree within 12 years from that date rendered the execution petition time-barred. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the appellate court and the High Court, and held that the execution petition was filed after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the execution petition was deemed time-barred, with no order as to costs.
|
