9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in execution proceedings. Summary: The appeal questioned the applicability of Article 136 of the Limitation Act in a case arising from a judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, affirming a decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division. Background: The suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was initially dismissed, but a second appeal led to a decree for possession of land. A review petition was filed and dismissed, leading to further legal proceedings. Key Points: - The appellant contended that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation due to lack of a stay order from the Court. - The High Court upheld the execution proceedings, stating that the decree was enforceable immediately upon passing. - The Supreme Court clarified that the decree for possession became enforceable upon pronouncement, and an execution petition was required within 12 years. - The Court emphasized that the stay order from 1988 did not impact the execution of the decree, as it was meaningless after the review petition dismissal. - The direction for computation of mesne profit did not hinder the execution of the possession decree. Decision: The Supreme Court held that both the Executing Court and the High Court erred in ruling that the Execution Petition was not time-barred. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside with costs awarded.
|
