ORDER

1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/decree holders challenging the order dated 13.8.2014 passed by Addl. Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa in execution case No.132-A/93/11 whereby allowing the judgment debtor/respondent’s application/objection dtd.19.10.2012, the Executing Court has dismissed the execution application as barred by limitation.

2. In short, the facts are that, upon filing civil suit No.132A/93 by the applicants/decree holders for redemption of mortgage of the land in question and due to non-appearance of the defendants 1-2 (including State of M.P.), the suit was decreed on 25.10.1996 to the effect that upon making payment of Rs.500/- by the plaintiffs, the defendant 1 shall handover possession of the land in question.

3. Undisputedly, application under Order IX rule 13 CPC was filed by respondent/judgment debtor on 8.2.2000, which upon due consideration was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2004. Misc. Appeal filed against which by respondent, was dismissed on 9.12.2005 and CR No.136/2006 was dismissed on 30.9.2011 by High Court. Similarly, SLP No.13628/13 was also dismissed on 20.3.2013.

4. Admittedly, the execution application was filed by applicants/decree holders on 20.4.2011. During pendency of execution application, the respondent/judgment debtor against the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd.25.10.1996 also preferred regular civil appeal in the year 2013 which was dismissed on 12.9.2013. Second appeal no.1051/13 filed against which by respondent, was also dismissed on 22.7.2015.

5. With the aforesaid narration of facts, the respondent/judgment debtor filed an application/objection dtd.19.10.2012 to the effect that the execution application filed by the applicants/decree holders on 20.4.2011 is clearly beyond limitation of 12 years prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. The application/objection was opposed orally by the decree holders, with the prayer of dismissal of the same.

7. After hearing rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, executing Court allowed the respondent/judgment debtor’s application/objection and dismissed the execution application holding it to be barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 13.8.2014. Against which, instant civil revision has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants/decree holders criticizing the impugned order submits that executing Court has committed illegality in dismissing the execution application holding it to be barred by limitation. By placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Akkayanaicker v. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu and another, (2004) 12 SCC 469 and in the case of Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. Harpreet Singh, AIR 2008 Raj 164, he submits that firstly the period of limitation of 12 years would commence from the date of order when proceedings under Order IX rule 13 CPC came to be finally decided, as such, the application was well within limitation. He further submits that against the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd.25.10.1996 regular civil appeal was also filed by the respondent in the year 2013, which was dismissed on 12.9.2013 and second appeal no.1051/2013 filed against which, was also dismissed on 22.7.2015, hence on the basis of principle of merger, the limitation will start from the date of passing of order dtd.22.7.2015 in second appeal no.1051/2013. Although the applicants had already filed the execution application on 20.4.2011. In support of his submissions, he also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Shanthi v. T.D. Vishwanathan and another, (2019) 11 SCC 419; Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (Smt), AIR 1966 SC 1332; and Uma Shankar Sharma v. The State of Bihar and another, AIR 2005 Patna 94.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor supports the impugned order passed by executing Court and prays for dismissal of the civil revision. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Surajdin Bhalbhadra