P.T.BABU Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a judgment debtor, impugns the order of the executing court, rejecting his plea that the execution petition is barred by limitation, whereby the objection raised on limitation was negatived and the execution petition was found maintainable.

(2.) The decree in question was passed in a suit for recovery of money secured under a mortgage, on 2/1/2002. The first respondent, who is the decree holder, had initially filed an execution petition on 4/8/2009. The said execution petition was returned on 24/11/2010, after a lapse of 507 days, on the finding that only the Debt Recovery Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain it, since, by then, the decretal amount had exceeded Rs.10.00 lakhs.

(3.) The first respondent, however, did not approach the Tribunal, but instead instituted a fresh execution petition before the very same court on 6/3/2015. By that time, the original period of limitation prescribed for execution of the decree, namely twelve years, had expired, and a further period of 428 days had also elapsed. The contention urged by the decree holder is that, if 507 days, i.e., the period during which the first execution petition was prosecuted in good faith before the said court is added under Sec. 14(2) of the Limitation Act ('the Act', for short) to the period of limitation for executing the decree, the present execution petition would fall within the period of limitation.