Limitation period for execution of a decree commences from the date when the decree becomes enforceable.

( 1 ) THE question for decision in this revision petition is : Whether the execution application is within limitation ? Tehl Chand, father of the petitioners filed a suit for eviction of the respondent Noor Khan on 20th May, 1958 under section 13 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 with respect to a portion of property No. 10020 Gali Naiwala, Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash, Delhi. He obtained a decree for his eviction on 19th February 1960. Under section 19 (1) (b) of the Slum- Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 the decree becomes executable only after obtaining the permission from the Competent Authority under the said Act as the suit premises are situated in a slum area. The decree-holder applied for permission to execute the decree but it was refused on 2nd April, 1962. His appeal filed under section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was also dimissed. Subsequently it appears, the decree-holder filed a suit for possession on the basis of title but his suit was also dismissed on 1st April, 1968.

( 2 ) TEHL Chand, decree-holder died leaving behind his sons Des Raj and Nand Lal. They applied for permission under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to execute the decree dated 19th February, 1960. They also filed an application on 17th July, 1980 for execution of the said decree. The judgment debtor Noor Khan filed objections. During the pendency of the Execution application the decree-holder was granted permission on 8th May, 1981 under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to execute the decree dated 19th February, 1960.

( 3 ) THE judgment debtor had objected that the decree by the civil court was a nullity, it was barred by time and was not executable without permission of the Slum Authority. The execution court by the impugned order dated 15th October, 1984 held that the decree was not a nullity that though permission had been obtained the decree became nnexecutable as the decree-holder did not take any action for a long time and the execution application was barred by time.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the decree became enforceable only one on the date when the permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was granted for execution of the decree and the limitation commenced from 8th May, 1981 when the decree became enforceable.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-judgment debtor submits that the petitioner filed an application for permission which was dismissed on 2nd April, 1962 and the appeal was also dismissed and therefore he was not entitled to file a fresh application seeking permission to execute the decree and the permission granted on 8th May, 1981 is contrary to law.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of Period of Time from which period begins application Limitation to run 136. For the execu- Twelve When the decree or order becomes tion of any years enforceable or where the decree or decree (other any subsequent order directs any payment than a decree of money or the delivery of any granting a property to be made at a certain mandatory in- date or at, recurring periods, when junction) or default in making the payment or order of any delivery in respect of which execution civil court, 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. " Under this Article a decree is executable within a period of 12 years from the date when it becomes enforceable. If the decree is not enforceable no execution lies and the period of limitation does not commence. It is not disputed that the permission to execute the decree dated 19th February, 1960 was obtained for the first tim