Thomas P. Joseph, J.—The Privy Council observed in General Manager of Raj Durbhanga v. Ramput Singh (14 Moor’s Indian Appeals 605 at page 612):

“Difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree.”

B.N. Banerjee.J., observed in Smt. Anita Karmokar &Anr. v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar AIR 1962 Calcutta 88:

“The path of execution is not an easy going high way and provides no short-cuts to the destination.”

2. As it happens usually in the present case also, may be without much difficulty respondent secured a decree against petitioner on 29.6.1994 for recovery of money. Certain items of immovable properties belonging to the petitioner were placed under attachment before judgment. To execute that decree respondent filed E.P.No.34 of 2002 within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”) and proceeded against some of the properties attached but the execution did not prove successful. On 11.7.2008 respondent filed Ex. P1, proclamation schedule to proceed against an item of property referred to therein and which also was placed under attachment before judgment but not included in E.P.No.34 of 2002. P