9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation Period for Execution of Decree 2. Impact of Legislative Interventions on Limitation Period 3. Enforceability of Amended Decree Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation Period for Execution of Decree The primary issue revolves around whether the execution petition filed by the decree-holder was within the prescribed period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decree-holder argued that the limitation period should start from the date the decree was amended and scaled down, whereas the judgment-debtor contended that it should start from the date of the original decree. Key Judgment Extract: "The High Court held that E.P. No. 412 of 1989 was filed beyond the period of limitation. That the limitation of 12 years for execution of the decree would start running from the date of the passing of the original decree i.e., 2.5.1973 and not from the amended decree dated 18.10.1979." 2. Impact of Legislative Interventions on Limitation Period The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975, and subsequent Acts provided temporary relief to indebted agriculturists, affecting the enforceability and execution of decrees. The decree-holder's execution petition was initially closed due to these legislative interventions, which suspended the execution of decrees for a specified period. Key Judgment Extract: "The proceedings in execution application No. 226 of 1973 filed by the decree-holder were closed and adjourned sine die because of the legislative intervention of Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 and thereafter by the Act 10 of 1975 and Act No. 15 of 1976 which provided for the stay of filing of the suits and the applications for execution of a decree for recovery/payment of money and the period during which the execution of the decrees remained suspended was to be excluded." 3. Enforceability of Amended Decree The court had to determine when the decree became enforceable, considering the legislative interventions and the subsequent amendment of the decree. The decree-holder argued that the limitation period should start from the date the decree was amended and scaled down, which was 18.10.1979, making the execution petition filed in 1989 within the limitation period. Key Judgment Extract: "The words 'when the decree becomes enforceable' which find place in Article 136 were not there in Section 48 of CPC. Because of the change brought about by the legislature the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the decree becomes capable of execution. The amendment carried out in the decree in the present case was substantial and not inconsequential like correction of clerical or arithmetic mistake under Section 152 of CPC. The decretal amount was substantially reduced because of the scaling down of the decree in terms of Act 40 of 1978." Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the limitation period for execution of the decree should start from the date the decree was amended and scaled down, as it was from that date the decree became enforceable. The court restored the order of the executing court and set aside the High Court's order. Final Judgment Extract: "For the reasons stated above, this appeal is accepted with costs. Order of the High Court is set aside and that of the executing court is restored. The executing Court shall now proceed with the execution petition and dispose it off in accordance with law. Since the decree is of the year 1973 we would request the executing Court to dispose of the execution petition on priority basis and if possible within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order." The office was directed to remit back the original record to the executing court immediately.
|
