The amendment of a decree does not extend the period of limitation for execution, as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 182 of the Limitation Act.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. On the 9th March, 1922, the first respondent obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada a money decree against the appellant, the appellants uncle and a cousin, who were the members of an undivided family. The amount for which judgment was obtained was Rs. 3,735, but a mistake was made in drawing up the decree and the figure inserted was Rs.200. It was not until the 16th July, 1928, that the mistake was corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 6th December, 1933, the respondent caused the decree to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for execution and on the 5th March, 1934, he applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The appellant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was his personal property and the decree had only made him liable to the extent of his interest in the family property. This objection was well founded and the attachment was raised. On the 12th November, 1935, the respondent filed another application for execution. Here he asked for the attachment of two decrees, one obtained by the appellant alone and the other in conjunction with his cousin. It was contended that the application was barred by the law of limitation and the contention was upheld by the Subordinate Judge. An appeal followed to the District Judge of Guntur who held that the decree was barred so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 2,200 but it was enforceable to the extent of Rs. 1,535, the difference between the Rs. 2,200 and Rs. 3,735, the figure which was inserted in the decree as the result of the amendment.

2. It is obvious that the District Judges decision was wrong in allowing execution of part of the decree. The respondent must be entitled to the full amount, if entitled to anything. When the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 182 of the Limitation Act are considered it however becomes manifest that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the decree was time barred.

3. Section 48(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from-

(a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or

(b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree.

4. Therefore a decree which has been passed for more than twelve years cannot be executed, but where the decree or an order passed subsequent to the decree directs payment of money or the delivery of property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods the date of the default in such a case shall be the starting point for the period of twelve years. Order 20, Rule 7 provides that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment.

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 48 says:

Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

(a) to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of the said term of twelve years, where the judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application; or

(b) to limit or otherwise affect the operation of Article 180 of the second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1877.

6. The corresponding article in the present Limitation Act is Article 182. Now, turning to Clause (4) of that article we find that the period of limitation where a decree has been amended is three years from the date of the amendment, but the article is expressly limited to