The execution of a decree remains valid if filed within the allowed limitation period despite prior delays acknowledged by the decree holders.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Deka, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Goalpara (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Executing Court”) in Title Execution Case No. 10/2013 whereby the learned Executing Court dismissed the execution application filed by the petitioners by allowing the petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”).

3. The facts in the instant case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had filed a suit before the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 70/1985 against one Abdul Wahab, the predecessor-in-interest of the principal respondents herein who was the defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1989 whereby the learned Trial Court granted the reliefs sought for in the suit and the defendant in the suit was directed to vacate the disputed land within 1 (one) month from the date of the judgment and decree failing which the defendant would be evicted from the disputed land in the process of law.

4. The defendant thereupon preferred an appeal before the learned Court of the District Judge, Goalpara (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 18/1989. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.08.1994 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 31.07.1989. However, in doing so the learned First Appellate Court granted the defendant 3 (three) months time to vacate the suit land. The defendant thereupon preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered and numbered as Second Appeal No. 178/1995. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 14.08.2001 dismissed the Second Appeal. In doing so, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that no case for interference which arose against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

5. It is further relevant to take note of that on 25.09.2013, the execution proceedings was filed by the decree holders which was registered and numbered as Title Execution Case No. 10/2013. The principal respondents herein who were the judgment debtors filed an application under Section 47 of the Code stating inter alia that the said execution application had been filed after a lapse of 12 years 1 month 11 days from 14.08.2001 and as such the same was barred by limitation in terms with Article 136 of the Schedule to the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (for short, “the Act of 1963”).

6. It is further relevant to take note of that pursuant thereto a petition was filed by the decree holders under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1963 praying for extension of the period of execution. The learned Executing Court vide the order dated 26.04.2023 allowed the said application filed under Section 47 and dismissed the execution proceedings and it is under such circumstances the present proceedings have been filed.

7. Mr. J. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.08.1994 permitted 3 (three) months to the defendant to vacate the suit premises