1. The judgment-debtor-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2000 passed by the Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur, in Execution Case No. 1 of 1996 dismissing the objection raised by him with regard to executability of the decree on the ground of limitation.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that the decree-holder-opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 178 of 1969/20 of 1975 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of six and half dhurs of survey plot no. 863 and 4 kathas three dhurs of plot no. 864 M under Khata no. 461, situated in village Panapur, District Muzaffarpur. The said suit was decreed on 23.3.1975 and the defendant-judgment- debtor first party was directed to deliver possession within a month.

3. The defendant-judgment debtor- petitioner and others filed Title Appeal No. 19 of 1975/13 of 1992, which was finally heard by the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, on 21.9.1993 and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment-debtor- petitioner and others, thereafter, filed Second Appeal No. 17 of 1994, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.4.1994.

4. In the year 1996, an execution case was filed by the decree-holder- opposite parties for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor-defendant failed to hand over the possession within the period stipulated in the decree. Thereafter, on 30.8.2000, the judgment-debtor filed an objection to the effect that the execution case was barred as it has been filed beyond 12 years from the date of trial court decree dated 23.3.75 in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act). The executing court rejected the said objection, hence the present revision application.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Article 136 of the Act, the period of execution of a decree is twelve years from the date when the decree of order becomes enforceable and in this case the decree, which was enforceable, was the decree of the trial court and the same is dated 23.3.1975 and the execution case was filed in 1996 much beyond twelve years and as such the same was barred and the court below committed a jurisdictional error in not holding so.

6. Learned counsel for the decree- holder-opposite parties submitted that once the judgment of the trial court was subject to appeal and finally the second appeal was dismissed by this court on 11.4.1994 then the judgment of the trial court merged with the appellate decree and the date for counting for the purposes of twelve years will be the judgment or decree passed in the second appeal on 11.4.1994 and as such the execution case filed in 1996 was within time and the learned Execution Munsif has rightly rejected the objection of the judgment-debtor.

7. Article 136 of the Act runs as follows :

Description of application Period of limitation Time from whicha period begins to run.

136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court. Twelve years. (When) the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place :

Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.

8. From a perusal of the said Article, it is clear that for the execution of the decree, other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction or order of any Civil Court, the period of twelve years is to be counted from the date the decree or order becomes enforceable or in a case where a different date has been fixed for payment of money or for delivery of possession, in that case the date is to be counted when the default in making payment or giving delivery of possession t