The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, particularly regarding the enforceable date of a decree and the implications of dismissal of appeal on preliminary grounds.

Nagendra Rai, J.

1. The decree holder is petitioner against the order dated 21.6.2001 passed in Title Execution No. 15 of 1996 by Spl. Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur holding that the execution case filed by him is barred by limitation.

2. The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the decree under execution is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act).

3. The factual matrix essential to decide the controversy are as follows. Janki Devi, Pramod Kumar and Prem Kumar filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 76 of 1964 against the descendants of Jogendra Tiwari for specific performance of contract. Defendant no. 7 only contested the suit. During pendency of the case, Janki Devi died. The suit was decreed on 30th November, 1976 in favour of Pramod Kumar and Prem Kumar. They were directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) by 3.1.1977 to the credit of defendant no. 7 who was directed to deliver the possession of the suit land in the light of the judgment within one month from the date of decree to the plaintiff/ decree holder. The defendants 1st Party including defendant No. 7 filed Title Appeal No. 10 of 1977. During pendency of the appeal, all the appellants died except Mostt. Indrapari Devi, defendant No. 7. The decree holder, Prem Kumar died unmarried. Pramod Kumar also died leaving behind his widow Veena Devi as his legal heir. While the appeal was pending Pramod Kumar entered into an agreement for sale of the suit properties in favour of the petitioner and accepted the part of the money and executed an unregistered Mahadnama, but during his life time no sale deed was executed in his favour. After his death, his widow Veena Devi executed a registered sale deed dated 29.7.1980 in respect of the suit property in favour of the petitioner and thus the petitioner stepped into shoes of the decree holder. He filed an application for being impleaded as party in the appeal which was rejected. He came to this Court and this Court set aside the order and directed the appellate Court to hear the matter afresh and thereafter on 17.12.1987, the petitioner was impleaded as a party in the appeal. The said order has attained finality.

4. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 9.2.1993. Mostt. Indrapari Devi filed Miscellaneous case for restoration of the appeal and the same was also dismissed on 17.10.1996 after contest. On 17.12.1996, the petitioner filed an execution case to execute the decree passed in Title Suit No. 76 of 1964 and in pursuance of that delivery of possession was given to the petitioner. The judgment-debtor Indrapari Devi filed an objection for setting aside the order of delivery of possession which was set aside and the said order was upheld by this Court.

5. The petitioner had filed amendment petition in the execution on 23.4.1999. The judgment-debtor filed a rejoinder and the Court below by order dated 17.7.1999 as stated above disposed of both the matters, i.e., the application filed by the judgment-debtor for restoration of the possession to her and the amendment petition filed by the decree-holder. It ailowed the application of the judgment debtor with regard to restoration of possession and kept the amendment petition filed by the decree holder in abeyance. The petitioner came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 1462 of 1999 and this Court by order dated 10.11.1999 directed the Court below to consider the amendment matter. Thereafter, the Court below allowed the amendment petition. The judgment-debtor came to this Court in Civil Revision no. 633 of 2000. This Court set aside the order allowing the amendment petition dated 17.1.2000 and remitted the matter to the Court below to decide the amendment matter and observed that the main question is to be decided is as to whether the petitioner can proceed with the execution case or not and that is the question which is to be deci