A second execution petition filed after the limitation period is barred, and withdrawal of an earlier execution does not extend the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for assailing the order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-11) passed by Learned Executing Court, Sohna, whereby objections filed by the judgment-debtors (petitioner herein) along with the objection filed by the third party objector (not party to this petition) have been dismissed.

2.1 On perusing the paper-book and hearing both sides the facts in brief emerge are as under.

2.2 An agreement to sell dated 26.06.1986 was executed between Narayan Swarup Agal (vendee) and Lekhu Ram (vendor) regarding the property in dispute. Lakhu Ram died in November, 1986. Suit for specific performance filed in 1989 by Narayan Swarup Agal against legal heirs of Lakhu Ram was decreed on 20.02.1999 vide judgment Annexure P-2. During pendency of the suit, Narayan Swarup Agal had died and his widow Smt. Kanta was impleaded in his place.

2.3 After depositing the balance sale consideration as per the decree, the execution was filed by Smt. Kanta Agal, the widow of Narayan Swarup Agal on 03.06.1999. Sale deed was executed in terms of the decree on 03.11.1999 and pursuant to the order passed by the Court, warrants of possession were issued. As per the order dated 10.11.2001 (Annexure P-4) of the Executing Court, it emerged that JDs had already sold the land in dispute to Sanjay Goyal & Sachin Goyal (third party objectors), regarding which mutation No.1524 dated 08.03.1996 had been sanctioned. On 19.12.2002, the execution was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement made by counsel for the decree-holder, as per order Annexure P-5.

2.4 On 17.12.2018, second execution was filed by Jitendra Agal son of Narayan Swarup Agal, without whispering about the earlier execution. During the pendency of this execution, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by Sanjay Goyal & Sachin Goyal to be impleaded as a party but the same was dismissed on 03.12.2018 vide Annexure P-7, to be not maintainable. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors as well as third party objectors filed separate objections (Annexure P-8 & P-9) against the execution mainly on the ground that the execution was barred by limitation, although some other grounds to oppose the execution were also raised. After taking reply Annexure P-10 of the DH, objections of both of them i.e. JDs as well as third party objectors were dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-11), by relying upon “V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali” AIR 1998 SC 1168.

3.1 Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel for the judgment-debtors (petitioner herein) that it was the specific contention of the petitioners that execution had been filed after a lapse of 12 years from the date of passing of the decree and therefore, it was barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel contends that limitation once started, cannot be stopped. The litigant cannot extend the limitation against statute. The execution can be filed within a period of 12 years and therefore, execution filed in 2018 i.e. after a lapse of almost 20 years for implementation of decree passed in 1999 is clearly barred by limitation. Learned counsel has referred to “Manohar Lal v. Sunder Lal” reported as Law Finder Doc ID #754406.

3.2 It is further pointed out that objection was also raised that vide mutation No.1726 dated 29.05.2001, mutation of inheritance was already sanctioned in favour of Jitendra Agal, who has filed the present second execution and his sisters, in the same Revenue Estate, where the suit land is situated and thus, he had due knowledge about the decree in question. Learned counsel contends further that authority cited by learned Executing Court i.e. “V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali” is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the earlier execution petition was pending, whereas in the present case, the first execution petition had been dismis