The period of limitation for execution of a decree starts from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable 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.

Soumen Sen, J.

The petitioner has filed an application for execution of a decree dated December 4, 2001 as amended on December 13, 2001. In the said proceeding this application has been filed for dismissal of the execution application, inter alia, on the grounds:-

i. The decree is incapable of being executed by this Hon’ble Court as none of the properties of the judgment debtor are within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and, hence, under Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the said application ought to be dismissed and/or be transferred to the appropriate Court.

ii. The decree is barred by limitation as it has been filed 12 years after passing of the decree.

2. The execution application has been filed on December 11, 2013.

3. The fate of the application depends upon a finding being arrived at in favour of the applicant/decree-holder that the period between the date of decree and correction of the decree are to be excluded in computing the period of limitation as the decree becomes enforceable and executable only after the decree was corrected and not prior thereto. In other words, the Court would be required to decide if the time interval between the original decree and the corrected decree is to be excluded and the decree-holder would be entitled to compute the period of limitation from the date of correction of the order and not from the date when the original order was passed. The question requires to be gone into is when would the period of limitation start for execution of a decree. Is it the date of pronouncement of judgment/date of decree or when the decree is corrected and drawn up and/or signed?

4. In an application filed under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules, a decree was passed on 4th December, 2001. Since the said decree contains some errors and omissions on mentioning the said decree was corrected on 13th December, 2001. Thereafter, the decree-holder had put in requisition for drawing up and completion of the decree and to obtain a certified copy thereof. However, no further steps were taken by the plaintiff to obtain a certified copy of the decree. On 3rd May, 2013, a decree dated 4th December, 2001 was placed for signature. On 3rd May, 2013 the said decree was signed. The order dated 3rd May, 2013 records that the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on instruction submitted that the plaintiff would forego interest granted by the decree-holder from 1st January, 2006 till date.

5. Mr. Anuj Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtor submits that the decree dated 4th December, 2001 is not executable since an application for execution was filed by the decree-holder on 11th December, 2013 which is beyond the period of 12 years within which an application is to be filed for execution of a decree. It is submitted that in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the said execution application ought to have been filed by 5th of December, 2001. It is submitted that the decree became executable immediately when the said decree was passed.

6. The judgment-debtor asserts that the correction made by the order dated 13th December, 2001 has to be read into the original order dated 4th December, 2001 and as such the wheel of limitation began to roll from 4th December, 2001 itself and not from 13th December, 2001 being the date which the decree-holder chose to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking correction in the original order dated 4th December, 2001. It is submitted that by order dated 13th December, 2001 various clerical, arithmetical and/or accidental errors that had occurred in the order dated 4th December, 2001 by reason of accidental slip and/or omission by the Hon’ble Judge, were rectified.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the subject money decree became enforceable on 4th December, 2001 itself. The said decree did not provide for any pre-condition or happening of any event before which the said decree could have become enforceable. It is submitted tha