The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decree of the appellate court alone subsists and that alone can be executed. The interpretation of Art.136 of the Limitation Act was crucial in determining the starting point of limitation for the execution of the decree.

1. This revision petition concerns a question of limitation. The respondent herein filed a suit O. S. No. 20 of 1960 for recovery of money. The trial court decreed the suit on 5-7-1966. This decree was enforceable only against the defendants 1 to 12,14 and 16 and their assets. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the said decree. He filed an appeal against that decree and in that appeal the plaintiff claimed a decree against all the defendants in the suit namely defendants 1 to 34 and also against the assets of all the defendants. In appeal the trial court decree was confirmed. It was on 24-10-1972.

2. The Counsel for the plaintiff tells me that execution of the decree was sought in the year 1976. But later the execution petition was not prosecuted. Now the plaintiff has filed E.P. No. 29 of 1980. This is dated 19-4-1980.

3. The 4th defendant - revision petitioner contended that the execution petition is barred by limitation. The execution court rejected the contention and ordered execution. Hence he files this revision.

4. The format of the contention is that the period of 12 years in Art.136 of the Limitation Act for the execution of the decree has to be computed not from the date of disposal of the appeal but from the date of the trial court decree i. e. 5-7-1966. If this date is taken as the date of the starting point of limitation obviously the execution petition is barred by limitation.

5. Counsel for the revision petitioner based his argument on the new and different phraseology used in Art.136 of the new Limitation Act for the purpose of reckoning the starting point of limitation. He submits the change effected in the language to denote the starting point of limitation in Art.136 is significant and that has to be examined for a proper valuation of bis submission.

6. The article corresponding to Art.136 in the new Act is Art.182 in the 1908 Act. I quote the articles. Clause (2) of the third column of Art.182 denoting the 'time from which period begins to run' provided that if there has been an appeal, limitation for the execution of the decree would commence only from the date of the final decree or order of the appellate court or withdrawal of the appeal. Now there is a total change in the phraseology in regard to the starting point for the computation of the period of limitation in the new provision, viz. Art.136 of the Limitation Act. In the new Act in Art.136 the starting point of limitation is:

"Where the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money "

The new Art.136 makes a very serious deviation from the old Art.182 in the matter of starting point of limitation. It provides that the time will begin to run from the moment the decree or order becomes enforceable.

7. Counsel relying on the language used in the Article namely that the time will begin to run where the decree or order 'becomes enforceable' submits that it should be held that the time of 12 years for the execution of the decree has to be computed from the date when the trial court passed the decree. He says that then; was an enforceable decree as soon as the trial court decreed the suit. He tells me that a plain reading of Art.136 will never admit of any other interpretation. He reminds me that the filing of the appeal will never stop the running of time. He is correct in his submission that the filing of the appeal alone will not stop the running of time for limitation. But in this case, there was an appeal and in that appeal the appellate court after considering the merits of the case confirmed the decree of the trial court. In such a case, what is to be ascertained is: what is the decree that can be executed whether it is the trial court decree or the appellate court decree? The further question is whether the trial court decree subsists for execution. What is the decree that is enforceable? These questions are relevant. They call for answer. These questions I feel have been answered