O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore in E.A. No.22 of 2022 in E.P.

No.13 of 2021 in O.S.N o.134 of 1987.

2. The revision petitioners are the respondents in E.P. 13 of 2021 filed by the respondent. The decree holder who is the respondent herein is a temple. The suit in O.S. No.134 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiff / respondent for the relief of recovery of possession against one S.V.Ganesa Goundar. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the said S.V.Ganesa Goundar. The suit in O.S. No.134 of 1987 was decreed in favour of the respondent herein on 27.02.1991. The defendant who was aggrieved by the judgment and decree had challenged the same by way of preferring an first appeal in A.S. No.108 of 1991 and the same was dismissed on 18.09.1991. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.1648 of 1991 and the same got abated due to the death of the S.V.Ganesa Goundar on 15.11.2002. Since execution proceedings were initiated during the year 2021 in E.P. 13 of 2021, the same was challenged by the legal heirs of S.V.Ganesa Gounder by filing a petition under Section 47 of C.P.C. on the ground that the decree dated 27.02.1991 is barred by limitation. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree in O.S. No.134 of 1987 was passed by the trial Court on 27.02.1991; even when the defendant challenged the said decree by way of preferring the appeals, no stay order was granted to stay the operation of the decree; since twelve years time as prescribed under Section 136 of the Limitation Act is barred on 27.02.2003, the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent is barred by limitation; the first Appellate Court did not reverse the judgment of the trial Court and the second Appellate Court did not pass any orders on merits, the respondent / temple cannot take any undue advantage of the pending second appeal to exclude the period from limitation.

4. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratansingh Vs.Vijaysingh and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 469.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners cannot take advantage of the Limitation Act and the limitation would start running only from the date when the Second Appeal was dismissed i.e. 25.01.2005. Since the Execution Petition has been filed on

27.06.2006, it is well within the period of limitation.

6. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Shankar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar and another reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Pat 65.

7. There is no quarrel with regard to the date during which the suit in O.S. No.137 of 1987 was decreed. The defendant against whom the suit was filed was said to have died on 18.09.1991 itself. However, his legal heirs were brought on record and the defendant has preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.108 of 1991 and the same was dismissed on 18.09.1991 by confirming the decree of the trial Court dated 27.02.1991. Even during the pendency of first appeal, there was no stay of the operation of the decree of the trial Court dated 27.02.1991. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the limitation will start running from

27.02.1991 itself and it will expire on 27.02.2003.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the second appeal was pending till the year 2005, the Execution Petition which was filed in the year 2006 will fall well within the period of limitation. 9. The attention of this Court was attracted to the judgment of Uma Shankar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar and another (cited supra). In the said judgment it is held that the judgment of the trial Court will attain finality only after the second appeal is