RAMCHANDRA REDDYAR Vs. TEXO INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor. Decree for money was passed against him on 10.11.1995. Decree amount was Rs. 14,913/-. For realising the decree amount and subsequent interest, the decree holder filed E.P. No. 100 of 2007. That Execution Petition was closed on 9.10.2009 granting instalment facility to the judgment debtor. He did not pay the amount. Later, the decree holder was constrained to file E.P. No. 199 of 2010. The judgment debtor raised the plea of limitation. The order passed by the court below is not produced. However, the petitioner produced the order dated 6th January, 2011 by which warrant was issued against him.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner that the decree is barred by limitation is unsustainable, Art. 136 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation of 12 years for execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction. As against the column "the time from which period begins to run," Art. 136 provides thus :

(3.) In the present case, the subsequent order directs payment of money. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from that date. Even otherwise, the present Execution Petition is to be treated as a revival of the earlier Execution Petition where the judgment debtor was granted time for payment of the decree amount in instalments. Where an Execution Petition is suspended by no act or default on the part of the decree holder, the subsequent Execution Petition filed by him can be treated as an application to revive the earlier execution proceedings. If the plea of the judgment debtor is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences. For instance, a case where the Execution Petition is filed on the last day of limitation. On the plea of the judgment debtor, in the peculiar facts of a particular case, the court may be inclined to grant time for payment or to provide a facility to him to pay the decree amount in instalments. In such cases, it is also common that the Execution Petition will be closed or dismissed. Does it mean that the decree holder will lose the right to execute the decree thereafter Does it mean that the order passed by the executing court granting instalment facility will have the result of destroying the executability of the decree Would it give an additional advantage to the judgment debtor by virtue of the order granting him a facility Certainly not. I have no hesitation to all to hold that the Execution Petition is not barred by limitation. No interference is called for in the order passed by the court. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.