IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation for execution of a decree starts to run from the date when the decree becomes enforceable.

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this revision petition, filed under Section 115, C.P.C., order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar in Civil Execution Case No.6/09 is under challenge, whereby, application filed by the decree-holder respondent for condonation of delay was allowed and objection raised by the Judgment debtor petitioner has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the suit for specific performance of contract filed by respondent in the year 1982 bearing No.117/1982 the trial court decreed the suit on 5.11.1988 and decree for specific performance was allowed in the following terms:

(Matter in other language)

3. In pursuance of the above decree, the petitioner/defendant was to get the sanad within three month of the decree from the competent authority; and thereafter was to execute registered sale-deed of the land situated in murabba No.79 (at present No.74) of chek 1C Bari, measuring 6.04 bigha, kila No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, failing which the decree holder was given liberty to get the sanad and sale deed executed through the court.

4. The decree was passed on 5.11.88.Thereafter, as per the petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff kept mum for almost 18 years and preferred execution application for decree dated 5.11.1988 on 25.2.2007 along with an application under Section 5, Limitation Act. The petitioner defendant submitted detailed reply to the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act, so also, raised objection to the maintainability of the execution proceedings before the executing Court. The executing Court, after hearing both the parties upon the application filed under Section 5, Limitation Act as well as objection raised by the petitioner-defendant, dismissed the objections and held that execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder is well within limitation. The said order dated 16. 7.2009 is under challenge in this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the executing Court has committed grave error of law and, so also of jurisdictional error while treating the execution proceedings within limitation, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner raised cogent objection that the provisions of the Limitation Act are clear that any appeal or any application other than application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be admitted after prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had satisfied the cause or not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the law of limitation is not applicable to the execution proceedings but, still, the learned executing Court proceeded to deal with the application and registered the execution proceedings while treating the same as filing of the execution after two years of the order, therefore, the finding of the learned executing Court is perverse and it amounts to manifest injustice with the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, it is crystal clear that an application for execution can be filed within 12 years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable and, here, in this case, decree was passed by the trial Court on 5.1.1.1988 and became enforceable after three months of the decree. Therefore, the instant execution application filed on 26.2.2007 for executing the decree dated 5. 11.1988 is apparently beyond limitation end it was not to be entertained by the executing Court; but while doing so, the learned executing Court has committed jurisdictional error adn initiated the execution proceedings while condoning the delay and rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner which is totally untenable and contrary to law.

7. While inviting