Final decree proceedings may be initiated at any time, and applications for final decree cannot be treated as barred by limitation.

The applicant has challenged

order dated 1-3-2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in execution Case No. 127-A/85 by which the execution application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the following grounds :-

a. That after the preliminary decree the applicant had not taken steps for final decree proceedings as required under Order 20, Rule 18 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code").

b. That even if the application filed by the applicant is treated as an application for final decree, then it was not filed within a period of 3 years from the date of preliminary decree dated 7-9-1987 and was filed on 18-1-1996 which was beyond a period of 3 years as provided by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. On the aforesaid ground, the Court below rejected the application. The order has been assailed by the applicant on the ground that on 4-9-1987 a preliminary decree was passed. On 21-10-87 an execution of decree was filed but it was dismissed in default on 22-12-1995. On 17-1-1996, 2nd application was filed in which a Commissioner was appointed on 22-9-1999 to give effect to the preliminary decree. The Commissioner submitted his report on which on 22-11-2000 objections were filed and the trial Court again on 24-7-2001 directed the Commissioner to file report. The judgment-debtor filed two applications dated 3-8-2001 and 4-9-2001 seeking review of the earlier forders but the executing Court rejected the applications and fixed the case of Commissioner's report. Thereafter, various applications were decided by the impugned order.

3. It was submitted by Shri Verma, learned counsel for the applicant that Art. 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply in the final decree proceedings. Final decree proceedings may be initiated at any point of time. Reliance is placed to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad (2007 (2) SCC 355 : (AIR 2007 SC 1077). It is submitted that the preliminary decree finalises the matter relating to declaration of rights and interest and final decree works out those rights so the final decree concludes the proceedings before the Court and suit comes to an end for all practical purposes, till then the proceedings of the suit continues. In these circumstances, there was no question of applicability of Art. 137 of the Limitation Act as held by the trial Court.

4. That though the proceedings were initiated by the applicant as an execution preceding but in fact these proceedings were none loss but the proceedings for final decree. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner to give effect to the preliminary decree and proceeded in the matter. The other party on the commissioner's report submitted objections which were considered by the trial Court and again the trial Court on 24-7-2001 directed the Commissioner to submit his report. These proceedings are in fact steps for the preparation of the final decree and the proceedings before the trial Court may be treated as proceedings for final decree. Reliance was placed to the Apex Court judgment in Mool Chand v. Dy. Director, Consolidation ((1995) 5 SCC 631 : (AIR 1995 SC 2493. That the impugned order dismissing the proceedings may be set aside and the trial Court be directed to conclude the proceedings treating the proceeding as final decree proceedings and to conclude it by passing a final decree in the matter.

5. Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/judgment-debtor submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law. The applicant ought to have filed an application for preparation of final decree and an application for execution of the decree was not maintainable. Before the trial Court an application for execution was filed which has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The preliminary decree was passed under Order 20, Rule 18 of the Code which requires an application for final decree, in the absence of which the trial Court passed the impugned