( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the-judgment-debtor against the order in E. A. No. 398 of 1976 in E. P. No. 31 of 1970 in O S. No. 342 of 1963 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, adoni, restoring the execution petition E. P. No. 31 of 1970.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows :- the suit O. S No. 342 of 1963 was decreed on 15th July, 1964. An execution petition e. P. No. 31 of 1970 was filed for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in the civil Prison. The judgment-debtor opposed the said application stating that he was not liable for arrest as be had no means to pay the amount. The execution petition was adjourned on a number of occasions and finally on 20th January, 1971, the judgment- debtor was set ex parte and his arrest was ordered. Pursuant to the said order of arrest, the judgment-debtor was brought under arrest on 1st February, 1971. On the date, the following order was passed. "j. D. arrested and released, as he filed i. P. E. P. dismissed ,"

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the insolvency petition I. P. No. I of 1971 was dismissed on 19th January, 1973 by the District Munsif, as the judgment-debtor had filed another insolvency petition I. P. No. 7 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Adoni. The said insolvency petition I. P. No. 7 of 1973 was also dismissed on 2nd July, 1974. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed the present application S. A. No. 398 of 1976 for restoration of E. P. No. 31 of 1970 and for taking further proceedings in execution. This application was opposed by the judgment- debtor contending that the said application for restoration amounts to filing of a fresh execution petition and that the said application for execution having been filed beyond 12 years from the date of the decree, it was baried under Article 136 of the new limitation Act.

( 4 ) IT was contended for the decree-holder that the application for restoration was not a fresh application for execution, but only an application for revival of the earlier execution petition, which was dismissed on account of the filing of the insolvency petitions by the judgment-debtor, and, therefore, execution was not barred by limitation. The learned district Munsif held that the termination of the execution petition could not be said to be for any default on the part of the decreeholder and in view of the insolvency petitions filed by the judgment-debtor, the execution petition could not be proceeded with and that the execution petition must be deemed to be pending, and that the application E. A. No. 398 of 1976 filed by the decree-holder is only a request to the Court to take further proceedings in the execution petition, and, therefore, it could not be said that the execution was barred. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the judgment-debtor.

( 5 ) SRI B. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor contended that the view taken by the learned District Munsif that the application E. A. No. 398 of 1976 is only an application for revival of the execution petition E. P. No. 31 of 1970 is erroneous and that in view of the deletion of section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 182 (5) of the old Limitation act, the theory of revival of an execution petition, which is dismissed or closed, does not arise and that the application E A. No. 398 of 1976 filed for restoration of E. P. No. 31 of 19 70 must be deemed to be a fresh application, and if so, the said application having been filed beyond 12 years is barred by limitation by reason of Article 136 of the new Limitation Act. I am unable to agree with this contention, because, I do not think the well settled principle of revival of an execution petition which was closed for statistical purposes or which could not be proceeded with on account of some statutory embargo on continuing the execution is altered or abrogated by reason of the deletion of section 48, Civil Procedure Code and section 182 (5) of the old Limitation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document