1. - Heard learned counsel.

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6/7/2011, whereby, the judgment debtor's objection as to execution of decree by the learned appellate court under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner - judgment debtor, Mr. R.K.Singhal relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu & Ors. - AIR 1958 SC 767 urged that when the decree of mandatory injunction of the trial court dated 21/4/1997 was sought to be executed by the decree holder, even though the said decree dated 21/4/1997 was modified by the appellate court on 12/2/1998, the execution could not be undertaken by the learned trial court and objection filed by the judgment-debtor before the Executing Court on 17/12/2002 was upheld and execution application of the decree holder was rejected by the learned trial court on 27/2/2006, therefore, the execution application was filed before the learned appellate court, which had modified the decree on 12/2/1998, on 28/7/2006, after about five months by that time but more than three years have passed since the decree was modified by the learned appellate court on 12/2/1998, such execution application was barred by limitation of three years and decree could not executed by the appellate court. He submitted that learned court below has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act & even without application filed by the decree holder, has condoned the delay and rejected the objection of judgment-debtor by the impugned order dated 6.7.2011.

4. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the impugned order and, therefore, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The bare perusal of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in Part III of the Act which deals with computation of period of limitation provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction. The said provision is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"14.Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 2 Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section-

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction."

5. A perusal of said provision makes it clear that even n