Sonia Gokani, J.

1. This is a classic case as to how the litigation in civil court by misuse of process of the Court could be elongated to tire the rightful claimant and deprive him of his legal dues for years and decades. It is also a matter which would fill every that person or authority with dismay for inexplicable slow pace of civil litigation.

1.1 The applicant is the original defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1975 and opponent No. 2 in Execution Application No. 117 of 2015, who as revisionist preferred this Revision Application aggrieved by the order passed by the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara on 03.02.2016.

1.1 The applicant - Revisionist and the respondents shall be addressed respectively as the defendant and the plaintiffs hereinafter.

2. The facts bereft of the details are as follow:-

2.1 One Tamboli Becharbhai Bapubhai was the original owner of the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 523/1, 524/1 and 524/2 situated at Village Manjalpur, Tal & Dist. Vadodara, which was originally the agricultural land.

2.2 Late Shri Punjabhai Adarbhai was a protected tenant of the said agricultural land. He claimed deemed ownership by virtue of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 since he was cultivating the land on the tillers' day i.e. 01.04.1957 and was in possession of the land. The opponent No. 6 - the State Government had acquired the land for the benefit of the petitioner for industrial purpose in the year 1962. The order of the acquisition passed by the opponent No. 6 was dated 10.09.1962.

2.3 This Court, vide its judgment and order dated 21.10.1966, in Special Civil Application No. 819 of 1962 struck down the acquisition of the land in question. On 19.12.1968, a Notification came to be issued by the State Government declaring deacquisition of the land in question. The compensation was refunded by the respondent plaintiff to the authority concerned on 27.01.1969.

2.4 The petitioner defendant did not hand over the possession to the respondent No. 1 - Punjabhai Adarbhai Solanki (deceased) who, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1975 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara for possession and for other consequential reliefs in the year 1975.

The defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement vide Exh. 10 and additional written statement vide Exh. 120. The petitioner led oral evidence by examining two witnesses. On 30.10.1996, the Trial Court allowed the prayers and declared the plaintiff entitled, from the petitioner, to recover possession of the suit property.

2.5 Aggrieved defendant filed appeal challenging the decree before the District Court, Vadodara in the month of October, 1997.

A Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 1997 needed to be preferred for condonation of delay. On 21.10.2005, the learned District Judge rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as well.

2.6 The plaintiff filed Execution Application No. 117 of 2015 under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC', for short) and sought issuance of possession warrant, substantiating the claim with various documents.

On 29.01.2016, the application for grant of possession warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiff - decree holder and on 03.02.2016 the Court issued bailable warrant for taking possession of suit land.

2.7 On 10.02.2016, the Bailiff took possession from the defendant through one Shri Anil Kumar Singh and the possession has been handed over to the plaintiff on the very day i.e. on 10.02.2016. The grievance raised by the defendant is to an effect that as per the Article 136 of the Limitation Act, an application for execution of decree has to be filed within 12 years of obtaining the decree. The decree, in the instant case, is dated 30.10.1996, which was challenged by preferring appeal and such Appeal was dismissed on 21.10.2005 along with the application for delay condonation being Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of