1985 Supreme(Del) 100
High Court Of Delhi
DES RAJ - Appellant
Versus
NOOR KHAN - Respondent
Civil 969 of 1984
Decided On : 02/26/1985
S.J.MATHUR, SUNIL MALHOTRA
The limitation period for execution of a decree commences from the date when the decree becomes enforceable.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 136 - DELHI AND AJMER RENT CONTROL ACT, 1952 - SECTION 13 (1) (E) - SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 - SECTION 19 (1) (B) - EXECUTION OF DECREE - LIMITATION COMMENCES FROM THE DATE WHEN THE DECREE BECOMES ENFORCEABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Decree-holder obtained a decree for eviction of the respondent under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Decree-holder applied for permission to execute the decree under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, but it was refused. Decree-holder's subsequent suit for possession on the basis of title was also dismissed. Decree-holder's sons applied for permission to execute the decree and filed an execution application. The judgment debtor objected that the decree was a nullity, barred by time, and not executable without permission of the Slum Authority. The execution court held that the decree was not a nullity but was barred by time.
Finding of the Court:
The execution application is within time. The decree became enforceable only on the date when permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was granted for execution of the decree, and the limitation commenced from that date.
Issues: Whether the execution application is within limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a decree is executable within a period of 12 years from the date when it becomes enforceable. The decree in the instant case became enforceable only on the date when permission was granted to the decree-holder under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. Therefore, the execution application is within time.
Final Decision: Revision petition is accepted setting aside the impugned order. The execution application is held to be within time.
( 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 Naiwali, Nawabganj, 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 dismissed. Subsequently it appears, the decree-holder filed a suit for possess on on the basis of title but his suit was also dismissed on 1st April, 1968.
( 2 ) TEHL Chand, decree-holder died leaving bebind 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 unexecutable 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 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 :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 time on 8th May, 1981. The decree thus became enforceable on 8th May, 1981 and the period of 12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act commenced from that date and not earlier.
( 7 ) IN Abdul Rashid v. Sri Sitaramji Maharaja Brajman and others, AIR 1974 Allahabad 275 a compromise decree for possession of lands in dispute was passed on 27th January, 1954. The decree provided that the judgment debtor would remove the constructions and deliver possession to the decree-holder after the latter served him with a notice giving him two months time to remove the construction. The decree-holder served a notice on 22nd October, 1962 asking the judgment debtor to deliver possession. The judgment debtor did not deliver possession. The execution application was filed