The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act, outlining the conditions for a second application for execution of a decree.

1. The fate of decree-holder™s second application seeking execution of decree for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- is required to be determined in this appeal. The Executing court has held it within time, but appellant judgment debtor wants it to be rejected as barred by time. That is precisely the contentious issue and the controversy turns on the interpretation of Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act.

2. A decree was passed by this court against the appellant for recovery of Rs.6,000/- way back on 25-5-1972. He filed his first execution application on 13-9-1977. This was, however, consigned to records on 27-12-1977. The decree-holder filed yet another application to have it restored, but that also was dismissed on 22-8-1978. Finally, followed the second application for execution which was filed on 2-2-1981. The judgment-debtor resisted it on the ground that it was barred by time. His plea, however, did not find favour and the executing court held it to be within time. Hence, this appeal.

3. Is the second application barred by time is the million-doller question. The answer to this turns on the interpretation of terms of Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act. Article 182 (I) provides for period of three years from the date of decree or order for making an application for execution. However, clause (5) of this Article lays down that period of limitation for execution of a decree or order of a civil court, not provided for under Article 183 or by section 48 of the code of civil procedure, is three years from the date of final order passed on an application made in accordance with law to the proper court for execution or to take some steps in aid of execution of the decree or order. The relevant provision reads as under: -

"Three years...(where the application next hereinafter mentioned has been made) from the date of the final order passed on application made in accordance with law to the proper court for execution or to take same step in aid of the execution of the decree or order; or"

4. The aforesaid provision, as would be evident, provides for three years period of limitation from the date of the final order passed on an application, made in accordance with law to the proper court for execution or to take some steps in aid of execution of the decree or order. The necessary ingredients of this provision are as under: -

a) that steps taken should be in furtherance of execution of the decree;

b) that application taking the steps must be in accordance with law; and

c) that application must be made to the proper court.

5. If all these conditions exist, three years time is allowed for making a second application from the date of final order passed on the first application provided it is a step in aid of execution. Whether it is so or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and if the facts show that proceedings taken, in which final order has been passed, had the effect of facilitating or advancing the execution to any extent or removing some obstacle in the way of execution, it will be a step in aid of execution. Given regard to this legal position, it remains to be seen whether in the present case the application filed by decree-holder for restoration of his first application for execution was a proceeding which was a step in aid towards execution? If it could be so treated, the period of limitation of three years would run from the date final order was passed on the restoration application i.e. when it was dismissed on August, 22, 1978.

6. It should go without saying that application for restoration and revival of the previous proceedings for execution is a step in aid of execution within the meaning of clause (5) of Article 182 of the Act. The resultant proceedings, even if treated collateral are certainly a step in aid of execution. If that be so, which in fact it is, period of limitation is liable to be reckoned from the date of dismissal of restoration application. There is fortunately no controversy whether rest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document