SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Mad) 223

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.N. CHANDURKAR
Palaniammal
Versus
S. Periasamy & Others
Civil Revision Petition No. 3041 of 1984
Decided On :Decided on : 19-04-1985

Advocates Appeared:
N. Sivamani for Petr.
S. Sethuratnam for Respt.

Computation of the period of twelve years must be from the date on which the appellate decree is made.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963-Section 28 and Article 136-Computation of the period for enforcement of the decree-Held, period of 12 years must be from the date on which the appellate decree is made in case where there is an appeal or three is a further appeal from the decree of the appellate Court.

       

Judgment :-

1. The only question which has been argued and which arises in this revision petition is whether the Execution Petition filed on 11th July, 1983 by the decree-holder is barred by limitation.

2. A decree directing the defendant to put the plainiiff in possession of the suit property was passed in O.S. No. 155 of 1963 by the District Munsifs Court, Erode on 27th August, 1964. This decree was confirmed by the appellate court when A.S. No. 161 of 1965 filed by the defendant was dismissed on 21st December, 1967. S.A. No. 826 of

1969 filed by the defendant was also dismissed on 23rd December, 1971. A petition under O. 21, Rr. 22 and 35, C.P.C., for execution of the decree was filed on 11th July, 1983.

3. Before the executing Court, an objection was raised that the decree-holder was not entitled to execute the decree beyond the period of 12 years from the date of the decree, which according to the judgment-debtor should be taken as 27th August, 1964 which is the date on which the trial court passed the decree. This objection has been negatived by the executing court which directed the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor to deliver possession of the property by 17th August, 1984.

4. Mr. Sivamani who appears on behalf of the petitioners in this revision petition has contended that the petition for execution must be held to be barred by limitation since it is filed beyond twelve years from the date of the decree of the trial court. He relied on the opening words of Column-3 of Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Art. 136 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:

Description of application. (1) Period of Limitation. (2) Time from which period begins torun. (3)136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. Twelve years. When the decree or order becomes enforceable or 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, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place: Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.

5. Mr. Sivamani contends that the period of twelve years is required to be computed from the time ‘when the decree or order becomes enforceable’. According to him, the decree of the trial court become enforceable on 27th August, 1964 and, therefore, the petition for execution of the decree should have been within twelve years From that date The present petition, according to the learned counsel, having been filed beyond the period of twelve years from 27th August, 1964 was liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel has relied on some observations made in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Umayal Achi v. Ramanathan Chettiar 1 In paragraph 12 of that decision, the Division Bench has observed:

“The time when a decree or judgment becomes enforceable is from the date when it is pronounced.”

Having regard to this observation, according to the learned counsel, the decree had become enforceable when the trial court pronounced the order on 27th August, 1984.

7. The limitation for execution of a decree under the Limitation Act, 1908 was provided by Art. 182 and the period of limitation was prescribed in the case of the execution of a decree or order of any Civil Court not provided for by Art. 183 or by S. 48. C.P.C. to be three years: or where a certified copy of the decree or order has been registered, six years. In the third column, the time from which the period begins to run was stated as follows:

1. The date of the decree or order, or

2. (Where there has been an appeal) the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court, or the withdrawal of the appeal, or,

3. (Where there has been a review of judgment) the date of the decision passed on the review, or

4. (W















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top