T. S. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA Vs. OOMMEN NINAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in O. S. No. 173 of 1972, Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner. In this revision, the order passed by the court below in E. P No. 47 of 1986 dated 16-9-1991 is in challenge. The respondent is the judgment debtor. A decree was passed in favour of the revision petitioner to realise a sum of Rs. 1,410/- with 6% interest on the principal amount and costs on 31-7-1972. The decree holder filed an execution petition on 11-1-1974. Since no steps were taken, it was dismissed. During that time, the respondent (judgment debtor) filed O. P. No.5 of 1972 under the Debt Relief Act. The revision petitioner decree holder was also a party there in. Due to the absence of the respondent, O. P. No. 5 of 1972 was dismissed on 17-11-1980. The judgment debtor filed restoration application, which was dismissed on 13-4-1984. The respondent judgment debtor had surrendered the property to the Sub Court in O. P. No. 5 of 1972. After the dismissal of O. P. No. 5 of 1972, he got the property released and wanted to alienate the property. It was then, the present execution, petition E P. No, 47 of 1986, was filed, on 24 2-1986. The execution petition was initially allowed on 19-7-1989. In C.R P. No. 2129 of 1989, at the instance of the judgment debtor, this Court set aside the said order and ordered a remit. This Court directed the court below to consider whether the decree holder is entitled to exclusion of time either under S.14 or under S.15 of the Limitation Act. After the remit, the court below, by order dated 16-9-1991, held that the decree holder is not entitled to claim exclusion of time under S.14 or 15 of the Limitation Act. The execution petition was held to be barred by limitation. The decree holder has come up in revision.

(2.) I heard counsel.

(3.) Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below has totally misconstrued S.14 and 15 of the Limitation Act. It was submitted that the court below declined to apply S.14 of the Act on the ground that the respondent was not prosecuting O. P. No. 5 of 1972, since he was only a defendant or respondent therein. So, S.14 will not apply. Counsel also submitted that the court below was in error in holding that S.15 of the Limitation Act will not apply since there was no stay or injunction against the execution of decree in O. P. No.5 of 1972. It was submitted that apart from S.15 of the Limitation Act, once there is a statutory bar from executing the decree that is sufficient to postpone the period of limitation.