1. This petition is fixed today for default of process fee. Shri Anand Bhardwaj, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. As both the parties agreed for arguing the matter finally, hence, arguments of both the parties are heard.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 6.12.2008 and 9.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Kolaras District Shivpuri in Execution Case No. 83A/76X93.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendant in the case had entered into an agreement to sell of a house for a consideration of Rs. 3,200/-. On 20.11.1977, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants and claimed for possession of the property.

4. This suit was decreed and an appeal filed by the defendants against such judgment and decree was affirmed on 3.8.1995. On 24.7.1997, the respondent/decree-holder filed execution proceedings against the present petitioner and proforma respondents/judgment debtors for execution of the registered sale-deed.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the stamp duty as directed by the Court on a decree was not deposited by the decree-holder for execution the sale deed nor a relief of possession was asked in the said execution. The execution continued and on 28.6.2008, the decree holder filed an application for amending the execution and praying for issuance of warrant of possession.

6. This application is allowed by order dated 6.12.2008. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising the plea that as stamp duty was not paid by the decree-holder in terms of the decree he is not entitled to execute the decree for execution of the sale-deed. These objections were rejected vide order dated 9.7.2008. Hence, this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the limitation for filing the execution is 12 years. A decree in the present case was drawn on 3.8.1995 by the 1st Appellate Court and the amendment application was moved on 28.6.2008 i.e., beyond the period of 12 years, hence, could not be allowed.

8. In respect of these arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Rajiv Lochan Chhalo Mishra and others v. Gangaram Lakshisingh and others reported in 1978 JLJ 337 = 1978 MPLJ 260. In that case, the learned single judge has held that execution is time barred, when there was certain directions to the decree-holder to deposit the amount for payment to judgment debtor to execute the decree and if he makes payment after period of 12 years and seeks execution for possession. As this amount was deposited by the decree holder after expiry of 12 years and the execution proceedings were filed thereafter, considering this fact the Single Bench of this Court has held that execution was barred by limitation and dismissed the execution proceedings.

9. The another judgment relied only on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the matter of Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 1996 SC 642 in which the apex Court has held that an amendment application in a plaint cannot be allowed after expiry of 12 years.

10. In reply to these arguments Shri Anand Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3369 has held that once amendment is incorporated, it relates back to the date of the suit. In the case of Shivsahay v. Nandlal and others, reported in 1989 JLJ 259 = AIR 1989 MP 40, this Court has held that where the amendment was sought after eight years of filing of suit for claiming a decree against the party whose name was not originally mentioned in the prayer clause by mistake, though he was party to the suit and no new set of facts and cause of action were introduced and no new claims