The period of limitation for the execution of a decree does not start running if the execution proceeding remains stayed, and an amended decree is binding on the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment-debtor.

The order, under challenge, in the present revision, was, on 24.04.2008, passed, in Title Execution Case No. 15/97, arising out of Title Suit No. 02/78, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat, whereby the learned Executing Court has rejected the objection raised by the present petitioners to the execution of the decree, in question.

2. This revision has a long history and the present impugned order has arisen in conse­quence of two different orders passed by the High Court, one of the orders having passed on 26.07.1998 and the other one on 14.02.2007 in CRPs No. 64/82 and 59/2005 respectively. The material facts, which led to the present revision, are closely connected with the events of the past and it would made ap­preciation of the questions, raised in the present revision, easier if the material facts, as mentioned in the order, dated 14.02.2007, and the relevant observations made therein are reproduced. With this end in view, the relevant portion of the order, dated 14.02.2007, is reproduced herein below: "2. The facts giving rise to the present revision may, in a nutshell, be set out as follows:

(i) The present petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Sailadhar Dutta, instituted TS No. 02/ 1978 for eviction of the opposite party herein, as defendant in the suit, from a piece of land, which was described by boundaries and area in the plaint. The suit was decreed on 15.09.1978. The decree, so granted, had two parts, one for possession of the land by evicting the defendant there from and the other part was regarding realization of money. Pursuant to the Title Execution No. 15/1979, which the decree holder initiated, the decree-holder re­ceived delivery of possession of 5 lechas of land, though the defendant-judgment debtor was actually in possession of 15 Lechas of the decree-holder's land. As the decree was in re­spect of 5 lechas of land, the judgment-debtor remained in the remaining portion of the land. The decree-holder, then", applied for amendment of the decree by an application, dated 11.03.1980, his case being, in brief, that it was following an inadvertent error that the measure­ment of the land was mentioned in the sched­ule of the plaint as 5 Lechas instead of 15 lechas and that the mistake, being clerical in nature, be corrected. This petition was summarily re-jected by the learned Munsiff No. 1 on 05.08.1981. The decree-holder, then, came to this Court with a revision petition, which gave rise to Civil Revision No. 64 of 1982. While the revision was pending in this Court, the decree holder made an application, in the execution proceeding, praying for stay of the said pro­ceeding on account of pendency of the revi­sion petition. This prayer was allowed on 30.05.1980 and it was directed by the learned Executing Court that the execution proceeding shall remain stayed. This direction staying the execution proceeding was not vacated at any later stage.

(ii) In the revision, the Court observed as follows:

"7. Considering that the petitioner had filed suit for ejectment of the opposite party it may be reasonable to think that the petitioner wanted to eject the opposite party from the entire land in latter's possession. Moreover, the description of the land in the plaint does appear to suggest that the petitioner had in­tended to eject the opposite party from the entire land in his occupation and not from only a portion of it, for it was stated that there was plaintiff's own land of the patta, on the east and north. On the remaining sides were the boundary fencing and the road. In the circum­stances, it appears that the petitioner had raised a substantial question which should have been heard and considered on merits. 8. It is true that the petitioner had in the earlier applications stated that the land in possession of the opposite party was 10 Lechas, and in another application it was stated to be 15 Lechas. While it may be said that there was some negligence but any error by accidental slip or omission or c