Judges : S.VELU PILLAI,T.S.KRISHRIAMOORTHY IYER
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Kesvan Govindan - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 103 of 1961
Decided On : 10/07/1965
Advocates Appeared :
A. R. Periera; For Appellant S. Narayanan Potti; N. K. Varkey; For Respondent
Limitation - Execution of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure - S.82 - Art.182(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908
Fact of the Case:
The appeal questions whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree for payment of money was passed against the State on 31-3-1954, and the execution petition was filed on 7-2-1959. The court below overruled the State's contention that the execution petition is barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution petition was within time and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of S.82 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art.182(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, regarding the limitation for execution of the decree against the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree holder's right to execute the decree against the State arises only after the expiry of three months computed from the date of the report of non-satisfaction by the court to the State Government, as per S.82 sub-section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also ruled that Art.182(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply when the decree is not immediately capable of execution, and the relevant Article applicable in such cases is Art.181.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the execution petition filed by the decree-holder was within time.
1. This appeal filed by the judgment-debtor raises the question whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree is for payment of money passed on 31-3-1954 against the State. The execution petition was filed by the decree holder on 7-2-1959. The contention of the State that the execution petition is barred by limitation was overruled by the court below.
2. It is agreed by both sides that the question of limitation has to be decided in the light of sub-sections 1 and 2 of S.82 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to its amendment by Central Act 66 of 1956. Sub-sections 1 and 2 of S.82 (before its amendment by Act 66 of 1956) read:
"(1) Where in a suit by or against the Government, or by or against a public officer in respect of any such act as aforesaid, a decree is passed against the Union of India or a State or, as the case may be, the public officer, a time shall be specified in the decree within which it shall be satisfied; and, if the decree is not satisfied within the time so specified, the Court shall report the case for the orders of the State Government
(2. Execution shall not be issued on any such decree unless it remains unsatisfied for the period of three months computed from the date of such report.
X X X"
3. No time is specified in the decree within which it has to be satisfied. After the expiry of the period fixed in the decree, S.82 (1) requires the court to send a report of non-satisfaction to the State Government for its orders and execution shall not be issued on any such decree unless it remains unsatisfied for a period of three months computed from the date of such report. Even if no time is fixed in the decree for satisfaction, sub-section 2 of S.82 applies and execution cannot be issued on any such decree unless it remains unsatisfied for the period of three months computed from the date of the report of non-satisfaction. Before execution could proceed, a report of non-satisfaction has to be sent and three months must elapse from the date of the report. In this case the report of non-satisfaction of the decree was sent by the court to the State Government only as per the directions given in the order under appeal. The learned Government Pleader contended that, as no time is specified in the decree as required in S.82 (1) of the Code as it stood prior to its amendment in 1956, even if the decree is not void, it is incomplete and is not executable in its present form and in that way the execution petition has to be dismissed. It has to be mentioned that this point was not raised before the execution court and we feel that this objection cannot be allowed in appeal. Since the court in pursuance of the directions in the order under appeal, has sent the report of non-satisfaction to the Government thereby implementing the decree, the contention is also without force.
4. The contention of the Government Pleader on the question of limitation is that Art.182 (1) governs the case and since the execution application is filed beyond three years from the date of the decree, it is barred by limitation. According to the learned advocate for the respondent, Art.182 (1) is not applicable to the execution of the decree in question, as the decree by virtue of S.82 of the Civil Procedure Code is not immediately capable of execution. According to the learned advocate, in the case of such a decree, time cannot run against the decree-holder until the decree becomes capable of execution and the relevant Article applicable in such cases is Art.181 and not 182 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1908. We are inclined to accept the contention put forward on behalf of the respondent. Art.182 (1) of the Limitation Act is to the following effect:
"182. For the execute Three years; or where 1. The date of the tion of a decree or order a certified copy of the decree or order, or etc. of any Civil Court not decree or order has been etc. etc." provided for by Art.183 registered, six years, or by S.48 of the Cod
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.