Honble SINGH, J.–This is a revision petition by the judgment debtor by which the objections filed by the judgment debtor- petitioner were dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.7.2006. The objection which has been raised is that the execution application was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(2). A few salient facts may be taken note of. The plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of money being Civil Suit NO. 29/1990 which came to be decreed ex-parte on 5.10.1991. An application for setting aside the ex-parte decree came to be filed by the defendant on 14.10.1991 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in which there was also a prayer that the execution of the decree may be stayed. The aforesaid application was opposed by the plaintiff-decree holder and the learned trial Court by its order dated 10.12.1991 dismissed the said application.

(3). The learned trial Court after hearing the parties also dismissed the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioner herein vide order dated 10.12.1991.

(4). It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff-decree holder consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. submitted an application for execution of the decree dated 5.10.1991 before the learned executing Court on 11.12.1991.

(5). The petitioner-defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.1991 dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. preferred S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1/1992 before this Court. This Court vide its judgment dated April 22, 1992 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant herein setting aside the impugned judgment dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. dated 10.12.1991 and remanded the case to the learned trial Court with the direction that the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14.5.1992 and an opportunity be granted to the parties to file their respective affidavits and decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. afresh. The said appeal was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 1,100/-.

(6). In the meanwhile, the execution application, filed by the decree holder/non-petitioner was sent by the executing Court to the Court at Jaipur where the properties of the judgment debtor were situated.

(7). After the remand of the case by this Court vide judgment dated 22.4.1992 to the learned trial Court for deciding the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., afresh, the parties appeared before the learned trial Court on 14.5.1992 and the cost was paid. However, before the learned trial Court no progress could be made in the hearing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. as the record of the suit which had been summoned by this Court somehow came to be misplaced and lost and did not reach the learned trial Court after the decision of the appeal by this Court on 22.4.1992. It may also be mentioned here that the learned trial Court in view of the above ultimately ordered for reconstitution of the record of the suit vide order dated 21.12.1999 i.e. after more than 7-1/2 years which were consumed in this process. In the meanwhile, on account of the fact that the appeal filed by the defendant-judgment debtor against the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. praying for setting aside the ex-parte decree had been allowed by this Court and the case remanded to the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.4.1992 the plaintiff-decree holder did not pursue the execution application which was ultimately withdrawn by him in view of the subsequent developments which have been mentioned hereinabove.

(8). After the remand order passed by this Court on 22.4.1992 and the file having been ordered to be reconstituted by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 21.12.1999, the matter remained pending for the defendant-judgment debtor to file his affidavit and ultimately on the failure of the judgment debtor to prosec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document