Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Smt. Saraswati Jinnappa Khot, Since Deceased By Her Lr’s- Revati Jinappa Khot, (After Marriage Revati Rayagouda Patil) and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Kumar Shripal Khot – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 105293 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 29-04-2025
For the Petitioners:Sri. Sangram S.Kulkarni, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. B.S. Kamate, Advocate.
The limitation period for executing a decree begins when the decree becomes enforceable, not from the date of the decree; delays caused by legal challenges initiated by the judgment debtor do not bar execution.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 136 - Execution of decree for specific performance - Execution petition filed on 31.03.2017 challenged as barred by limitation; however, due to previous ongoing partition suit, the enforceability of the decree was postponed until final resolution, making the execution timely. (Paras 2, 9, 19)
(B) Law regarding enforceability of decrees - Decree's enforceability determines limitation - The limitation period commences not from decree issuance but when it becomes valid and uncontested. (Paras 20, 21)
(C) Execution delay caused by judgment debtor's own actions cannot be used to bar execution. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
Respondent filed for specific performance regarding an agreement, which was decreed on 11.07.2002; petitioners claimed execution was barred by limitation despite previous partition suit challenging the agreement's validity.
Findings of Court:
Execution petition well within time due to prior legal disputes delaying enforceability; decree upheld as valid after resolution; Section 12 of the Limitation Act applicable.
Issues: Whether the execution petition is barred under Article 136 of Limitation Act due to prior decree timing.
Ratio Decidendi: Limitation begins upon decree enforceability, defined by legal resolution, not decree issuance; petitioners cannot challenge ruling after own delaying actions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's analysis of execution petition's timing (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. debtor's arguments on limitation under article 136 (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. enforceability defined by legal challenges (Para 15 , 18 , 21) |
| 4. determining the enforceability of decree (Para 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 5. conclusion on execution petition's merit (Para 24 , 26) |
ORDER :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
The captioned petition is filed by the judgment debtors assailing the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.89/2017 on an application filed in I.A.No.3.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent filed a suit seeking relief of specific performance based on an agreement dated 25.04.1991 executed by the father of petitioners namely Jinappa Jayapal Khod. The said suit was contested by father of petitioners. The Court decreed the suit filed in O.S.No.30/1995 by holding that present respondent/decree holder has succeeded in proving the agreement. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 11.07.2002. The father of the present petitioners herein was directed to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent/decree holder by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Based on the decree rendered by the Court in O.S.No.30/1995, respondent/decree holder filed an execution petition on 31.03.2017. The present petitioners who are the judgment debtors before the Executing Court have filed an application in I.A.No.3 under Section 115 of CPC requesting the Executing Court to dismiss the execution petition as barred by law. The primary contention raised by petitioners before the Executing Court is that the decree in a specific performance suit was rendered on 11.07.2002 and therefore, Article 136 of LIMITATION ACT is applicable to the present case on hand and the decree was enforceable as on 2002 and therefore, execution petition filed on 31.03.2017 is clearly barred by limitation and hence, sought for dismissal of the execution petition.
3. Executing Court, however, over-ruling the objections raised by the present petitioners/judgment debtors referring to the records found that before a decree for specific performance was passed, the judgment debtor No.1 had already filed a suit for partition and separate possession against her husband and other family members on 08.11.2001 and in that suit, the respondent/decree holder was arrayed as defendant No.2. The said suit filed in O.S.No.711/2011 was dismissed with costs. The petitioners preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15/2006. The same was dismissed on merits on 26.02.2016 thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.711/2011.
4. Referring to these significant details, Executing Court was of the view that it is only after disposal of the regular appeal in R.A.No.15/2006 dated 26.02.2016, the respondent/decree holder has filed execution petition on 31.03.2017 and therefore, held that execution petition is well within time and consequently, rejected the application.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would point out that the decree for specific performance granted in O.S.No.30/1996 was not at all challenged by the present petitioners and therefore, in terms of Article 136, the decree became enforceable the moment specific performance suit filed in O.S.No.30/1996 was decreed on 11.07.2002. Therefore, he would contend that execution petition filed in 2017 is barred by limitation as per Article 136 of LIMITATION ACT .
6. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
- Nemi Chand vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 17 SCC 448
- Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute reported in (1995) 3 SCC 583
- Sajja Chimpiraiah vs. Gaddam Venkata Subbaiah & Others reported in 2004 SCC OnLine AP 262
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder citing Section 12 of LIMITATION
