The limitation period for execution of a decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, begins from the date of the appellate court's final order dismissing the appeal, even if such dismissal is for default or non-prosecution.

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

Leave Granted.

2.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (“Decree Holder”) challenging the judgment dated 03.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in Writ Petition No. 565 of 2024 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) wherein the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent (“Judgment Debtor”) and set aside the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Motala (hereinafter referred to as “Executing Court”), whereby the execution application filed by the Decree Holder Signature Not Verified D AN ig I i T ta Awll y M s A ig Lan H e O ds T b R y A allowed for the enforcement of the decree dated 03.12.1999.

Date: 2026.04.06 Reason:

3.

The essential facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Decree Holder had instituted a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.68/1997 for declaration and recovery of possession by removal of encroachment, along with payment of mesne profits, in respect of 51R of agricultural land out of Gat No.77 situated at village Takli, Taluq Motala, District Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”) against the Judgment Debtor before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malkalpur (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”). The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and order dated 02.12.1999 and the decree was prepared on 03.12.1999. The relevant extract of the order passed on 02.12.1999 is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Order

1) Suit is decreed.

2) Defendant shall hand over possession of 51 R. land out of land Gat No. 77 to the plaintiff as shown in blue colour in map Exh.42 which shall form the ;part of decree hereinafter, within 3 months.

3) Defendant shall also pay Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff towards mesne profit prior to filing of suit.

4) The future inquiry be held in respect of mesne profit under Order

20 rule 12 of CPC from the date of Judgment till delivery of possession by defendant to plaintiff.

5) Defendant shall pay costs to plaintiff and shall bear his own.

6) Decree be drawn up accordingly.”

4.

On 31.12.1999, the Judgment Debtor preferred the first appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.131/1999 against the judgment and order dated 02.12.1999 under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) before the Court of District Judge, Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”).

5.

The said first appeal came to be dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 25.11.2004. It is pertinent to note that the decree dated 03.12.1999 passed by the Trial Court was never stayed by the First Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal.

6.

Subsequently, on 04.12.2015, the Decree Holder initiated execution proceedings before the Executing Court for the enforcement of the decree dated 03.12.1999 vide Regular Darkhast No.05.2015. The Judgment Debtor appeared in the execution proceedings and filed his objections on 26.02.2016, challenging the maintainability of the proceedings as hopelessly barred by law, having been filed beyond 12 years of the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1999 passed by the Trial Court. It was further contended that he had not filed any appeal against the decree of the Trial Court, stating that he had given Vakalatnama to file an appeal but could not contact his lawyer due to illness. However, the Decree Holder submitted in