The main legal point established is that the enforceability of a decree falls within the prescribed limitation period under the relevant Article of the Limitation Act, and the pendency of another civil suit does not arrest the period of limitation.

Dhirendra Mishra, J.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 21-9-2000 passed in Execution Case No. 157-A/2000 by learned First Civil Judge Class II, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar whereby the objection of the applicants with respect to maintainability of execution proceedings on the ground of limitation has been rejected and in execution of the decree dated 2-9-1987 passed in Second Civil Appeal No. 142/83 by the High Court of M.P., warrant of possession of the suit house and attachment warrant for recovery of decretal amount of Rs. 178.45/-has been issued against the applicant.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that undisputedly the decree was passed on 2-9-1987 and execution proceeding was initiated by decree holder only on 28-4-2000 which is beyond the period as prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act (henceforth 'the Act'). He further submits that the applicants' objection has been rejected with an observation that execution proceedings pertains to a decree of mandatory direction whereby the appellant (Smt. Durgeshwari alias Pila Bai Panigrahi; respondent No. 1 herein) is held to be lawful owner and title holder of the suit house and entitled to obtain the possession of the same from the respondents/defendants. The decree accordingly was passed. Thus, by the said decree, a mandatory direction has been issued by the High Court of M.P. and for such decree no limitation for execution has been prescribed. He submits that the decree in fact was for possession of the suit house and, therefore, for the purposes of limitation, Article 136 of the Act is attracted and the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of Article 136 of the Act and the same should be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicants/plaintiffs submits that though execution proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, but the decree holder could not file execution proceeding in view of the fact that brother of the decree holder had filed a civil suit against the judgment debtor and decree holder for declaration and possession of the suit property, which was ultimately dismissed in the year 1995 and in these circumstances, the period of limitation commences from the year 1995 when the subsequent suit was dismissed and as such, the same was within limitation.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as also the decree dated 2nd September, 1987 passed in S.A. No. 142/83.

5. By the above decree the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court was set aside and the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 plaintiff was allowed and she was held to be lawful owner and title holder of the suit house and entitled to obtain possession of the same from the applicants/judgment debtor. A decree accordingly has been passed.

6. From bare perusal of the above decree it is manifestly clear that a declaratory decree has been passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 plaintiff to the effect that she is lawful owner and title holder of the suit house and entitled to obtain possession of the same from the applicants/judgment debtor. The Executing Court rejected the objection against the enforceability of the decree on the ground that the decree, in fact, is for declaration, ownership, title and mandatory direction, for which no limitation is prescribed. Articles 135 and 136 of the Act are reproduced as under:

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

135. For the enforcement of a Three years The date of the decree or

decree granting a mandatory where a date is fixed for

injunction. performance, such date .

136. For the execution of any decree Twelve years * * *

(other than a decree granting a mandatory * * *

injunction )or order of any Civil Court Provided that an application

for the enforcement or

exec