IMPORTANT POINT
Practice of prolonging of the litigation by various frivolous objections taken from time to time at every stage adopted by a public corporation should not be allowed.

ORDER

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 09.08.2016 by which the application under Article 227 filed by appellant, challenging the order and judgment dated 06.07.2015 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur has been dismissed. The appellant is a decree holder whose application to execute the decree has been rejected as barred by time which order has been affirmed by the High Court by the above mentioned judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has come up in this appeal. The respondent to the appeal is a public sector corporation, namely, Damodar Valley Corporation(hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation').

2. The present is a classic example of ill effects of prolonging litigation by parties and specially, when one of the party is a public sector corporation. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are:

3. The appellant was given a contract for construction of a new administrative building for the Corporation in the year 1983. The disputes and differences arose between the parties. The appellant requested for appointment of an arbitrator, which was not acceded to by the Corporation, an arbitrator was appointed by the Civil Court who gave an award dated 24.05.1988, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,78,873/. The award was filed in the Civil Court and various objections were raised by the Corporation in the Court. The Civil Court vide its order dated 16.03.1991 after rejecting the objections of the Corporation accepted the award dated 24.05.1988 and decree was passed in terms of the award with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Neither any payment was made by the Corporation, after the award nor any appeal was filed against the order of the Court dated 16.03.1991.

4. An application was filed by appellant on 19.07.2000, stating that even after the award having been accepted by the Court on 16.03.1991 payment has not been made. The application stated that amount payable up to 30.06.2000 including interest is Rs. 16,39,063/. The appellant prayed that the order be passed drawing up a formal decree in the light of and as consequences of the final order dated 16.03.1991, so that decree can be put into execution for realization of outstanding dues as on 30.06.2000, amounting to Rs. 16,39,063/. The above application filed by appellant dated 19.07.2000 was objected by the Corporation. Although, in the application dated 19.07.2000 the Corporation appeared on 12.09.2000 but took several adjournments thereafter. As per the provisions of C.P.C. Order XX Rule 6A, the decree was to be drawn within fifteen days, but due to objections and adjournments taken by the respondent, the Court could direct for preparation of the decree only on 21.02.2003.

5. The appellant filed an application for execution of decree on 30.06.2006. An objection was filed by the respondent to the execution application. The Executing Court transferred the decree to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Durgapur, District Bardwan by the order dated 09.06.2008. Before the transferee court an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the Corporation raising various objections. One of the objections raised was that execution application has been filed after more than fifteen years from the date of judgment & decree i.e. 16.03.1991 hence, the execution is barred by limitation.

6. The appellant filed reply to the objection of the respondent and submitted that execution is not barred by limitation. One of the submissions made was that, decree was finally prepared only on 21.02.2003 hence, execution application is not barred by time. The trial court after hearing the parties held that the decree was enforceable on 16.03.1991 and money execution case having been filed on 30.06.2006, which is beyond the prescribed time limit of twelve years hence, the execution is barred by time. Against the aforesaid order of the trial court dat