The captioned writ petition is filed by the judgment

debtor feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2021

wherein the objections raised by the present judgment debtor

in regard to maintainability of the execution petition on the

ground of limitation is negatived by the Executing Court. The

said order is under challenge.

2.

The

respondent/plaintiff

has

filed

a

suit

for

possession in O.S.No.232/1996. The said suit was contested

by the present petitioner/judgment debtor and the Trial Court

3

after examination of ocular and documentary evidence

decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 24.03.2000.

After disposal of the suit, the respondents/decree holders,

however, found that there is an error in the schedule and

therefore, filed an application which came to be rejected. This

compelled the respondents/decree holders to file a fresh suit

in O.S.No.117/2001 seeking correction of the judgment. The

said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated

11.07.2006. The Trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled for

correction of measurement in the judgment and decree passed

in O.S.No.232/1996.

3.

Pursuant to correction, the respondents/decree

holders filed execution petition in E.P.No.32/2006 seeking

delivery of possession in terms of decree passed in

O.S.No.117/2001. The present petitioner strongly resisted the

execution proceedings by contending that the decree is not at

all executable as it was passed against a dead person. The

Executing Court having examined the material on record

4

upheld the objection raised by the present petitioner/judgment

debtor and dismissed the execution petition by holding that

the execution petition is filed on the basis of decree passed in

O.S.No.117/2001 which is the subsequent decree permitting

correction

in

the

judgment

and

decree

passed

in

O.S.No.232/1996. It is in this background, the Executing

Court found that the decree is not executable.

4.

It is in this background, the respondents/decree

holders filed a fresh execution petition in E.P.No.113/2016 by

including both the decrees passed in O.S.No.232/1996 and

O.S.No.117/2001. Now in the present execution petition, the

petitioner/judgment debtor claims that the decree cannot be

executed as it is barred by limitation and the same is hit by

Article 136 of Limitation Act, 1963. The Executing Court

having verified the records was of the view that the decree

became executable only after the subsequent decree was

passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.117/2001 which is dated

11.07.2006. Though suit for possession was decreed in earlier

5

suit bearing O.S.No.232/1996, however, on account of some

error in regard to measurement, a subsequent suit was filed

seeking correction of measurement. The said suit in

O.S.No.117/2001 is decreed on 11.07.2006 and therefore, the

Executing Court was of the view that the present execution

petition filed in the year 2016 is well within the prescribed

limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act and

therefore, the Executing Court negatived the defence in regard

to limitation raised by the present petitioner herein. It is this

order which is under challenge.

5.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6.

The respondents/decree holders filed a suit for

possession in O.S.No.232/1996. The said suit was decreed by

the

judgment

and

decree

dated

24.03.2000.

The

respondents/decree holders realised that there is an error in

measurement, therefore, they were compelled to file one more

6

fresh

suit

seeking

correction

in

the

measurement

in

O.S.No.117/2001. The said suit was decreed by judgment and

decree dated 11.07.2006. Therefore, limitation has to be

reckoned from the date of judgment and decree passed in

O.S.No.117/2001. The contention of the petitioner/judgment

debtor that Execution Petition No.32/2006 is dismissed as not

maintainable

and

the

respondent/decree

holder

cannot

maintain a second execution petition cannot be acceded to.

The Executing Cou