ORDER :

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the learned Court below whereby rejecting the objections raised by the Judgment debtor, the learned Court below directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the decretal amount.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit filed by the respondent was decreed vide judgment of the trial court dated 21.08.2003. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree by filing appeal. As there was delay, application seeking condonation of delay of 275 days was filed. The same was dismissed by 1st Appellate Court vide order dated 20.10.2005. The order was challenged by filing Civil Revision No. 37/2006 in this Court. The same was dismissed on 28.12.2007.

3. The respondent filed first application for execution of decree on 28.12.2005. However, the aforesaid execution application was dismissed in default on 03.02.2007. Thereafter fresh execution was filed on 06.05.2009, i.e. 3 years and 9 months after filing of the first execution application. As the second execution application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation, objections were filed before the executing court. The same were dismissed on 04.02.2010 and thereafter vide impugned order, the review filed against that order was also dismissed.

4. Further argument raised is that limitation as prescribed for in Section 48 CPC is for filing fresh application for execution. As in the case in hand, first application for execution filed by the respondent was dismissed for non prosecution, for filing any subsequent application limitation as provided for under Article 182 of the Limitation Act will apply and the period would be three years and that period can maximum be counted from the date the appeal is decided as is mentioned in the aforesaid Article. If counted from that date, the execution was beyond three years.

5. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court in J&K Bank Limited and others vs. Amar Poultry Farm, 2007 (2) JKJ 153 [HC].

6. On query by the Court as to how much money and time has been spent by the petitioner to contest litigation where the decree was passed by the Trial Court way back in the year 2003 only for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, there was no answer.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent decree holder submitted that first execution filed by him was dismissed for non prosecution on 03.02.2007. It was when civil revision filed by the petitioner was pending in this court. After the dismissal thereof, execution was filed on 06.05.2009. The same was not barred by limitation. The period has to be counted from the date the revision petition was dismissed as it was in continuation of the proceedings. In support of his arguments, reliance was placed on judgment of this court in State vs. Hindustan Construction and Company, AIR 1993 J&K 16.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

9. Certain dates which are relevant for appreciating the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, are summed up hereunder:-