2004 (10) TMI 550 - SC - Indian Laws

What would be the date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution thereof within the meaning of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Upon analyzing when a decree or order becomes enforceable vis- -vis the definition of decree in Section 2(2) of the Code this Court observed that when a dismissal of an appeal takes place on the ground of its being time barred, no decree is passed.

Issues Involved:
1. Date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in the context of appellate decrees.
3. Interpretation of Article 136 vis-`a-vis old Article 182 of the Limitation Act.
4. Impact of amendments in the Limitation Act on the enforceability of decrees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Date from which a decree becomes enforceable for execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The primary issue addressed was determining the enforceable date of a decree for execution purposes under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court examined the historical context, noting that under the old Limitation Act, multiple dates could trigger the limitation period for filing an execution petition. However, Article 136 simplified this by providing a single enforceable date. The court emphasized that a decree becomes enforceable when it is passed by any competent court, whether it is the trial court or an appellate court.

2. Applicability of the doctrine of merger in the context of appellate decrees:
The court elaborated on the doctrine of merger, explaining that when an appellate court issues a decree, it supersedes the trial court's decree. This doctrine ensures that there is only one operative decree at any given time. The court cited previous judgments to affirm that the doctrine of merger applies regardless of whether the appellate court affirms, modifies, or reverses the trial court's decree. The court also clarified that the doctrine does not apply when an appeal is dismissed summarily or on procedural grounds, such as delay.

3. Interpretation of Article 136 vis-`a-vis old Article 182 of the Limitation Act:
The court compared Article 136 with the repealed Article 182 of the old Limitation Act. Under the old Article 182, multiple dates could start the limitation period, complicating the execution process. Article 136 streamlined this by setting a single 12-year period from the date the decree becomes enforceable. The court highlighted that this amendment aimed to simplify the execution process and eliminate difficulties arising from various starting points for the limitation period.

4. Impact of amendments in the Limitation Act on the enforceability of decrees:
The judgment discussed the legislative intent behind amending the Limitation Act, particularly the shift from Article 182 to Article 136. The amendment was designed to provide clarity and uniformity in the execution process. The court noted that all decrees, whether original or appellate, are enforceable, and the enforceable date is crucial for determining the limitation period for execution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the enforceable date for the decree in question was the date when the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and drew up a formal decree on 30th October 1986. Therefore, the execution application filed on 26th March 1997 was within the 12-year limitation period prescribed by Article 136. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decisions, and reaffirming the principles of the doctrine of merger and the simplified execution process under the amended Limitation Act.

← Previous Next →