SAROJINI THANKAPPAN Vs. D THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the period of commencement of the limitation, for an execution of a decree, would be from the date of the decree, or on the date of engrossment of the decree, or the signing of the decree by the Presiding Officer of the Court, is the question mooted before this Court for consideration and decision.

(2.) The bare facts required for the disposal of this writ petition ate that, a decree in O.S. No. 1096/1980, on the file of the III Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, was passed on 30-11-1995. But the copy of the decree showed, erroneously, the date as 30-09-1995. At the instance of the writ petitioner herein, who is the 1st judgment debtor, the decree was allowed to be corrected on 1-4-1998. But the correction was carried out in the decree only on 13-09-2004. The writ petitioner had made Ext. P2 application for issuance of the copy of the decree, with the date corrected as 30-11-1995, on 2-4-2003. It was received on 25-9-2004. The decree holder filed Ext.P4 execution petition, E.P. No. 438/2004, which is the second one, on 8-10-2004, as the execution petition filed at the 1st instance was dismissed on 3-3-2003 under Ext. P1 order. The writ petitioner took up contention that the execution petition is barred by limitation, under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in short 'the Act', the period of limitation being only three years, for enforcement of the decree of mandatory injunction. The lower court accepted the contention of the judgment debtor and dismissed E.P. No. 438/2004, holding that the same is barred by limitation, as could be seen from Ext. P4. The same is under challenge through this writ petition.

(3.) I heard both sides. Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as contained in the schedule to the said Act, is given below :-