Back
2004(7) Supreme 139
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Ashok Bhan & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Akkayanaicker -Appellant
versus
A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu and Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1999
Decided on 23-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R. Nedumaran and M.A. Chinnasamy, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Rishiraj Borooah and K.K. Mani, Advocates.
Held : This Court in Hameed Joharan Vs. Abdul Salam, 2001 (7) SCC 573, after referring to the meaning ascribed to the word "enforce" from various dictionaries held that the words "when the decree or order becomes enforceable" should be read in their literal sense and as per intention of the legislature 12 years period is to be reckoned from the date the decree became enforceable. It was observed that the language used by the legislature in Article 136 if read in its proper perspective must have been to clear up any confusion that might have arisen by reason of the user of the expression "the date of the decree or order" which was used in the earlier Act. The requirement of the Limitation Act in the matter of enforcement of a decree is the date on which the decree becomes enforceable or capable of being enforced. The intention of the legislature being clear and unambiguous a meaning other than the literal meaning of the words used in the statute did not arise. (Para 14)
In our opinion, learned Single Judge in the above case has correctly interpreted the scope of Article 136. We agree with the view expressed that in case of amendment the original decree no longer retains its form and what is sought to be executed is the amended decree. The word "enforceable" has to be construed with reference to the decree that is sought to be enforced. In the present case, as stated above, the decree-holder filed an application for execution in the year 1973 itself but its proceeding were closed and adjourned sine die because of the legislative intervention which continued till the legislature enacted Act No. 10 of 1978 and provided for the scaling down of the debts obtained by the agriculturists including decrees already passed. In pursuance to this legislative enactment the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder was substantially scaled down and the decree was amended on 18.10.1979 in terms of the Act No. 40 of 1978. It is this decree which became enforceable. Prior to this date the decree-holder could not enforce his decree because of the legislative intervention. The original decree could not be enforced. It is only the amended decree which could be enforced. When there was a legislative bar for the execution of a decree and later due to legislative intervention the decree had to be scaled down and amended then enforceability of decree shall commence when the bar ceases or from the date the decree is amended and scaled down. If the period of 12 years is counted from the date of the amendment of the decree then the execution petition filed by the decree-holder on 18.9.1989 is within the period of limitation. (Para 16)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The word "enforceable" in Article 136 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted with reference to the specific decree that is to be enforced. The enforceability of a decree is determined by the point at which it becomes capable of enforcement, which can be affected by amendments or legislative interventions (!) (!) .
When a decree has been substantially amended or scaled down by legislative enactment, the enforceability date is deemed to be from the date of such amendment or scaling down, not the original decree date. This means that the limitation period begins from the date the amended decree becomes enforceable (!) (!) .
Legislative interventions can suspend the proceedings of execution, and the period during which the execution is suspended due to such intervention should be excluded from the limitation period. Once the legislative bar ceases, the limitation period resumes from the date the decree becomes enforceable, i.e., from the date of the amendment or scaling down (!) (!) .
The limitation period for executing a decree is 12 years from the date the decree becomes enforceable. If the decree is amended, the enforceability date shifts to the date of the amendment, and the limitation period is calculated from that point (!) (!) .
It is essential to determine whether the execution application was filed within the limitation period, considering the date the decree became enforceable, especially after amendments or legislative interventions. Filing within this period is crucial for the validity of the execution proceedings (!) (!) .
In cases where the original decree was not enforceable due to legislative or procedural reasons, the enforceability and limitation period start from the date the decree was amended or scaled down to become enforceable (!) .
The interpretation of "when the decree becomes enforceable" is that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date the decree, after amendments or scaling down, is capable of enforcement, rather than from the date of the original decree (!) .
Vigilant efforts by the decree-holder to execute the decree, even after legislative interventions, can be relevant, but the critical factor remains the date on which the decree is deemed enforceable for limitation purposes (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the original decree no longer retains its form after amendment, and the enforceability must be assessed based on the amended decree. The limitation period begins from the date the amended decree becomes enforceable (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of timely filing of execution applications within the limitation period calculated from the enforceability date, especially after amendments or legislative changes that affect the decree’s enforceability (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Bhan, J.-Appellant/decree-holder being aggrieved against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 3540 of 1992 wherein the High Court while allowing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondent has dismissed the execution petition filed by the appellant, has filed the present appeal by leave of the Court.
2. Appellant/decree holder (hereinafter referred to as "the decree holder") filed O.S. No. 322 of 1972 seeking a decree in the sum of Rs. 18,912/- along with agreed rate of interest @ 12% p.a. being the principal and the interest due on the promissory note dated 3.6.1968 executed by the respondent/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment debtor"). The suit was decreed on 2.5.1973. This decree became final between the parties.
3. Decree holder filed execution petition No. 226 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 application was barred by Section 3 of the Ordinance or during which the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title believing in good faith that Section 3 of the Ordinance applied to such suit or such application refrained from instituting the suit or making the application shall be excluded. The execution of the decree already obtained was suspended for a period of one year.
4. The legislature thereafter enacted Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 [Act 10 of 1975] with the object to provide temporary relief to the indebted agriculturists to spare them from the distractions and expenditure involved in litigation launched by their creditors in order that the maximum possible advantage may result to the State in the matter of production of food crops. Section 3, as in the Ordinance, created a bar to the institution of the suits or applications for execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit against an agriculturist for a period of one year from the date of the commencement of the Act. Section 4 provided for stay of proceedings if the suits or applications for execution of a decree had already been instituted and Section 5 provided for exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for a suit for the recovery of the debt or an application for execution of a decree passed in such suit. After the expiry of one year of the Act 10 of 1975, the legislature enacted The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 [No. 15 of 1976] with the same object as of Act 10 of 1975 and with similar provisions of bar of institution of suits and the applications for execution, stay of proceedings and exclusion of time while computing the period of limitation for filing the suits or the applications for execution of a decree. Thereafter, the legislature enacted The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 [Act No. 40 of 1978] for scaling down the debts obtained b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
