2004 (8) TMI 774 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the execution application was time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Whether the decree dated 14.01.1970 was merely declaratory and thus non-executable.
3. Whether the decree could be questioned for its validity during execution proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Limitation Period for Execution Application
The petitioners argued that the execution application was time-barred as it was filed in 2004, well beyond the 12-year limitation period prescribed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of the decree (14.01.1970). However, the court held that the limitation period starts from the date when the obstruction to the decree's execution was put by the judgment debtors, not from the date of the decree itself. The court confirmed that since the obstruction occurred later, the execution application was within the limitation period. Thus, the first preliminary objection raised by the petitioners was rejected.

Issue 2: Nature of the Decree and Its Executability
The petitioners contended that the decree dated 14.01.1970 was merely declaratory and hence could not be executed. They cited precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that a declaratory decree cannot be executed as it only declares rights without directing any specific action. However, the court noted that the decree in question was a compromise decree, which had been acted upon by the parties for a long period without dispute until the obstruction occurred. The court distinguished between simple declaratory decrees and those arising from compromises, stating that the latter often include implied consequential reliefs. Therefore, the decree was deemed executable, and the objection that it was merely declaratory was rejected.

Issue 3: Validity of the Decree in Execution Proceedings
The petitioners argued that the decree was null and void and thus could not be executed. The court held that the executing court does not have the authority to question the validity or propriety of the decree. The court emphasized that the executing court's role is to enforce the decree as it stands. Consequently, the objection regarding the decree's validity was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the judgment debtors, confirming the order dated 18.05.2004 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta. The execution application was deemed within the limitation period, the decree was found to be executable despite being declaratory in nature, and the validity of the decree could not be questioned during execution proceedings. Thus, the order allowing the execution of the decree was upheld, and no costs were ordered.