( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order passed in E. P. No. 20/84 in o. S. No. 72/91 (sic. 71) on the file of Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram.

( 2 ) THE Suit was filed for specific performance of the contract and the plaintiff obtained the decree. She filed E. P. in the year 1984 to execute the sale deed, the judgment-debtors took the plea that the E. P. is time barred and therefore the decree cannot be executed. The lower Court overruled the objection and e. P. was ordered to be proceeded with.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the present Revision is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the suit was decreed on 1-7-1971. The E. P. should have been filed on or before 1-7-1983. Obviously, the E. P. is filed on 1-9-1984, i. e. beyond the period of limitation of 12 years as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation act. He further submitted that I. A. No. 1323/83 was filed to amend the decree by incorporating the time limit for execution of the sale deed as it was not shown in the original decree. That LA. was also filed not within 12 years from the date of the decree. It was filed subsequently. Therefore, the order in i. A. No. 1323/83 does not give fresh cause of action and extend the limitation. For all these reasons, the E. P. filed on 1-9-1984 is clearly time barred and the lower Court was not right in rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtors.

( 5 ) I am not inclined to accept this contention. It is true that the suit was decreed on 1-7-1971. But unfortunately the decree does not contain the time limit within which the sale deed has to be executed. This is an intrinsic defect in the decree itself. After perusing the defect in the decree, the decree-holder filed I. A. No. 1323/83 to amend the decree incorporating the time limit within which the sale deed has to be executed. The LA. was allowed and the amendment was carried out. The contention that the amendment could not give fresh lease of limitation is not acceptable to me. Admittedly, the decree as it originally stood did not prescribe any time limit for execution of the sale deed. This is a patent mistake which crept into the decree, for which the decree holder is not responsible. It is the mistake of the Court in not incorporating the time limit for execution of the sale deed. It is a salutary principle that the party should not suffer for the fault of the Court. In Nazeeruddin vs. Ram Devi this Court held as follows:-"it is well known that the time for payment and the execution of the document are generally fixed in judgments and decrees for specific performance. The omission to do so in this case is clearly an accidental slip or omission coming within the meaning of Section 152. The lower court however, stated that the judgment and decree are in accordance with the pleadings and it was for the plaintiff to choose to execute the decree. The decree can be executed within the time stipulated for execution of the decree. In view of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code the execution can drag on for 12 years. If the view of the lower Court is right what would be the result?"

( 6 ) IN view of the above observations, the decree as originally stood is patently not correct in not incorporating the date for execution of the sale deed. That was rectified by the order in I. A. No. 1323/83 in this case and amendment was also carried out. Certainly the time for execution extends from the date of amended decree. If this fact is taken into consideration, the e. P. which was filed in this case on l-9-1984 is well within time. The lower court was right in overruling the objection of the judgment-debtors. There are no grounds to interfere with the order under Revision.

( 7 ) HENCE, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances, without costs.