RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA, J.

( 1 ) THE short but important point involved in this execution application is about the meaning of the expression "when the decree or order be- comes enforceable" as provided in the third column of Article 136 of the Limitation Act of 1963. By the said provision 12 years' time has been given for the execution of a decree. The said Article provids :"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. "

( 2 ) ON behalf of the decree-holder It is argued that the time to obtain the certified copy of the decree should be excluded in computing the period of 12 years mentioned in column two of the aforesaid Article and 12 years should start running from the date when the certified copy thereof is obtained from court. The point arises on the following facts :

( 3 ) ON 30th November 1956 the decree herein was passed. Requisition to draw up the decree was put in on the very same date. Thereafter the draft decree was issued for approval and the same was settled and passed finally on 19th March, 1957. The decree was filed on 25th June, 1957. On behalf of the decree-holder stamps were put in on 10th August 1959 for obtaining the certified copy of the decree. The present tabular statement was taken out on 25th January 1969 accompanied by the certified copy.

( 4 ) THE matter came up for hearing before Ghose, J. on 24th February, 1970 when the decree-holder was given liberty to use a further affidavit. It appears that since 9th March 1970 this application became ripe for hearing again but the same was adjourned from time to time at the request of the parties.

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the date for obtaining the certified copy has not been furnished yet the point was considered on the basis that the same must have been supplied not earlier than 25th June 1957 when the decree was filed. It would appear that if I hold that the time to obtain the certified copy is to be excluded, in that event by computing the period of 12 years from 25th June 1957 the application would be within time but if I hold that the date of the decree is the relevant date when time has begun to run within the meaning of the expression "when the decree becomes enforceable" then in that event the application must be held to be barred by limitation.

( 6 ) IF the language used In the third column is read as a whole, a clear meaning is 'found in respect of the expression "when the decree or order becomes enforceable". The word "enforceable" has been used in the context of such decrees or orders whose operations have been kept in abeyance by the language used in the said decrees or orders themselves. The intention of the Legislature in using the word "enforceable" must have been to clear up any confusion that might have arisen by using the expression "the date of the decree or order" which was used in the earlier Act. My attention has been drawn to the Obiects and Reasons for framing the above article, as set out in the 4th Edition of A. I. R. Commentary on the Law of Limitation, Vol. II at p. 1870 as follows :"existing Article 182 has been a fruitful source of litigation and therefore the proposed Article 135 (now Article 136) in lieu thereof, provides that the maximum period of limitation for the execution of a decree or order of any civil court shall be 12 years from the date when the decree or order became enforceable (which is usually the date of the decree or order) or where the decree or subsequent order directs anv paymen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document