IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delays in signing a decree by the court can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an execution petition under the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

Heard Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 04.12.2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet in CFR.No.542 of 2007 in unregistered E.P., whereby the EP was dismissed at the threshold.

3. The revision petitioners are the decree holders/plaintiffs and the respondents are the judgment debtors/defendants.

4. The facts of the case, if narrated in a narrow compass, which are necessary for disposal of this Revision Petition, are that the suit in O.S.No.132 of 1992 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property was decreed ex parte on 23.09.1994. Subsequently, on 16.11.2007, the decree holders filed E.P. under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC seeking execution of the decree passed in the said O.S. i.e., for delivery of the suit schedule property to them.

4.1. The office of the Executing Court took an objection as to the maintainability of the said EP as the same was filed after 12 years from the date of passing of the judgment in the said O.S. Thereupon, as can be seen from the impugned order, lengthy arguments were advanced by the learned counsels for the decree holders as well as the judgments debtors and the trial Court, upon considering the limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, observed that the decree holders ought to have filed Execution Petition within a period of 12 years from the date of passing of the judgment i.e., on or before 24.09.2006, but they have filed Execution Petition on 16.11.2007 and accordingly, held that the Execution Petition is not maintainable and dismissed the same at the threshold. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holders contended that though the judgment was pronounced on 23.09.1994, the decree in the said suit was signed by the Presiding Officer on 12.06.2007 and therefore, the limitation starts from 12.06.2007; that the Executing Court went wrong in computing the period of limitation from 23.09.1994 and hence, he prayed to allow this Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Sasi v. R.S. Devadas, AIR 2009 Kerala 9

2. Chanabasappa v. Narasing Rao Gunde Rao, 1959 SCC OnLine Kar 25

3. Bharat Chandulal Nanavati & Ors. v. United Commercial Bank, MANU/ MH/ 0489/ 1988

4. Harbant Kaur v. Amar Singh & Ors, 1991 SCC Online P&H 202

5. Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 149

6. Subash Ganpatrao Buty v. Maroti, AIR 1975 Bom 257

7. Ram Krishna Tarafdar v. Nemai Krishna Tarafdar, 1973 SCC OnLine Cal 76

8. Udayagiri Ramija Begum & Anr. v. Mulla Ali Baig & Anr, 2010 (4) ALT 272 (S.B.)

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Executing Court had rightly applied the law of limitation to the facts of the present case and dismissed the EP at the threshold and therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Vs Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage (P) Limited, (1999) 8 SCC 315 and Hameed Joharan Vs. Abdul Salam, (2001) 7 SCC 573.

9. This Court has given its earnest attention to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the judgments cited by learned counsel for both the parties.

10. The undisputed facts of the case are that ex parte decree was passed against the defendants/respondents herein in O.S.No.132 of 1992 on 23.09.1994; that the defendant filed I.A.No.567 of 1994 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree; that by order, dated 09.07.1999, the said I.A. was allowed subject to certain conditions; that time for compliance of such condition was extended by the trial Court