9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of 1973 but the proceedings in the same were closed because of the legislative intervention of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance 1 of 1975). As per Section 3 no suit for recovery of a debt or an application for execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt could be instituted against an agriculturist in a civil or revenue court before the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of the Ordinance. Section 4 provided for the stay of proceedings in the suits or applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief claimed was against the agriculturist, not being proceedings for the amendment of pleadings or for the addition, substitution, or the striking off of parties, but otherwise inclusive of proceedings consequent on orders or decrees made in appeals, revision petitions, or applications for review. Section 5 provided that in computing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for a suit for the recovery of a debt or an application for the execution of a decree passed in such suit, the time during which the institution of the suit or making of the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the decree holder in the year 1989 was beyond the period of limitation, the same having been filed after 12 years from the date of the passing of the original decree dated 2.5.1973. It was prayed that the proceedings in the execution petition No. 412 of 1989 be terminated. The case of the decree holder was that the execution petition was within limitation as the same had been filed within 12 years of the scaling down of the original decree and the passing of the amended decree on 18.10.1979. The executing court did not accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Judgment debtor and dismissed E.A. No. 399 of 1991 filed by them. It was held that limitation to file the execution petition under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would start from the date the decree was amended as it is from that date the decree became enforceable. 6. The judgment debtor being aggrieved against the order passed by the executing court filed CRP No. 3540 of 1992 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras which was accepted. 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 runn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents strenuously contended that the period of 12 years for execution of the decree is to be reckoned from the date of the passing of the original decree and not from the date the decree was scaled down and amended. 10. On the above contentions, it has to be determined whether the execution application filed by the decree-holder was within the prescribed period of limitation? We shall commence the determination of the question by first reading Article 136 of the Act which is as follows: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court Twelve years (when) the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place: Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. 11. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its third report felt that Article 182 was a very fruitful source of litigation and had become a weapon in the hands of both the dishonest decree- holder and the dishonest judgment-debtor. The Law Commission in its report recommended that the maximum period of limitation for the execution of a decree or order of any civil court should be 12 years from the date when the decree or order became enforceable (which usually is the date of the decree) or where the decree or subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree. It was recommended that there was no need for a provision compelling the decree- holder to keep the decree alive by making an application every three years. Normally, a decree-holder is to realize his decree within a period prescribed but an exception was required to be made to the effect that the Court may order the execution of a decree upon application presented after the expiration of a period of 12 years, where the judgment-debtor had by fraud or force prevented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P 355 , relying upon the expression in Article 136 of the Act when the decree becomes enforceable which is not there in Section 48 of the CPC concluded that the decree which was subjected to an amendment can be enforced only as amended and the period of limitation would start only from the date of the amendment of the decree. The learned Single Judge held as follows: The next decision on which reliance was placed was Ouseph v. Lona, AIR 1979 Ker 14 . This decision undoubtedly supports the case of the respondents. But I am unable to agree with the principle enunciated in this decision. No doubt, the principle of S. 48 is now embodied in Article 136 which provided for 12 years period of limitation for the execution of a decree, but the starting point must be determined with reference to the express language of Article 136 which says when the decree becomes enforceable . These words were not there in S. 48. In my opinion, the proper interpretation would be, to reckon the period from the date of the decree that is sought to be enforced, i.e., if there is an appeal, it is the appellate Decree and if there is an amendment, it is from the date of the amended decree. As I said earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment of the decree then the execution petition filed by the decree-holder on 18.9.1989 is within the period of limitation. 17. Further, on verification of the record we find that the decree-holder has all through been vigilant and initiated several proceedings to recover the decretal amount. The earlier execution application filed in the year 1973 was adjourned sine die because of the legislative intervention. After the amendment of the decree he filed execution petition Nos. 62 of 1980, 12 of 1981 and 680 of 1984. Thrice arrest warrants were issued against the judgment-debtor. Once he was arrested but he escaped from the custody and absconded. His property was put to sale. Judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 50/- and Rs. 100/- towards the payment of decretal amount. The case was adjourned a number of times at the request of the judgment- debtor but in spite of the adjournments given to satisfy the decree, his arrest and publication to sell his property, the judgment-debtor had failed to deposit the decretal amount. 18. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
