The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the execution of a decree.

1. This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Baba Balbir Singh, petitioner (judgment debtor), against the order dated 17-1-2003 passed by the executing Court dismissing the objections dated 8-11-2002 filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor and ordering the issuance of warrants of possession in respect of suit property.

2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court on 11-11-1969. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, in November, 1975. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on 18-1-1985, upholding the decree for possession passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-decree-holders filed execution petition before the trial Court on 2-1-1997, seeking the execution of the decree for possession. Notice in the said execution petition was given to the judgment-debtor (Baba Balbir Singh), who filed objection petition to the execution petition, alleging therein that the present execution petition was barred by limitation inasmuch as the period of limitation was 12 years and the present execution petition filed by the decree-holders was barred by limitation. The decree-holders filed reply to the objection petition. After hearing both sides the learned executing Court found that the execution petition was within limitation. Resultantly, the objection petition dated 8-11-2002 filed by the objector was dismissed and the warrants of possession were ordered to be issued against the judgment-debtors with Police help vide order dated 17-1-2003. Aggrieved against the same, Baba Balbir Singh, objector, filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court.

3. On 21-2-2003, when the case came up for motion hearing before me, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for a short date to study the question of law involved in the present revision petition i.e. the question of limitation for filing the execution petition. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 25-2-2003 i.e. today.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the objector/petitioner submitted before me that under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , the limitation was 12 years for the execution of any decree and the limitation would start from the date when the decree became enforceable. It was submitted that in the present case, the decree was passed by the trial Court on 11-11-1969 and no stay of any kind was granted by the Appellate Courts and finally the Regular Second Appeal was decided by this Court on 18-1-1985 and as such the execution petition filed on 2-1-1997 was barred by limitation.

6. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the objector/petitioner. Article 136 of the Limitation Act reads as under : Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run

"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 payments or delivery in respect of which execution is sought,takes palce : Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpectual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation."

7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the limitation for execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court is 12 years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The question that comes up for consideration before me is as to when the decree passed by the Civil Court, in