The limitation period for executing a decree runs continuously unless stayed by a specific order; absence of such an order means the execution application filed beyond the limitation period is barred.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution have been invoked to challenge the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Executing Court’) whereby the Execution Proceedings being Title Execution Case No.33/2018 was dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation in terms with Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act of 1963’).

3. For deciding the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 01.10.2021, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings infra.

4. The Petitioners herein as Plaintiffs had filed a suit being Title Suit No.15/2000 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over a plot of land specifically described in Schedule-B to the plaint which admeasured 2 Kathas 5 1/3 Lechas and for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule-B land thereby evicting the defendants i.e. the respondents herein.

5. The learned Trial Court vide a judgment and decree dated 24.09.2004 decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs/Petitioners herein. Immediately thereupon, an Execution Proceedings was filed by the Petitioners which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No.29/2004 before the learned Executing Court.

6. The respondents herein who were the defendants preferred an Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2024 passed in Title Suit No.15/2000 before the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.3/2005. The said Appeal was dismissed on merits vide a judgment and decree dated 09.12.2005. No Second Appeal thereagainst was filed and as such the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2005 attained finality. Applying the doctrine of merger, the date of passing the Appellate judgment and decree dated 09.12.2005 is to be reckoned for the purpose of limitation under Article 136 of the Act of 1963.

7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of certain other relevant dates which have importance for the purpose of disentangling the facts and to bring out the point in controversy.

8. The Execution Proceedings which was filed immediately after the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. Title Execution Case No. 29/2004 continued pursuant to the Appellate judgment and decree. In the said Execution Proceedings, an order was passed by the learned Executing Court on 17.06.2008 permitting the parties to measure the suit land and to submit their respective findings before the learned Executing Court for necessary order. The Petitioners herein who were the decree holders being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2008 passed in the Executing Proceedings filed an application before this Court by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP No.218/2008. This Court had issued notice in the said application and also called for the records of Title Execution Case No.29/2004 which was pending before the learned Executing Court. The records were sent to this Court by the learned Executing Court after passing necessary orders on

27.08.2008.

9. The proceedings being CRP No.218/2008 were disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 25.08.2011 whereby the order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court was set aside and the Petitioners herein were permitted to file appropriate application before the learned Executing Court which would, upon receipt thereof, take immediate steps to ensure the execution of the decree at the earliest strictly in ac