N VITTAL PRAPHU Vs. SHRIMATH AUAMTHESHWARA TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is against an order directing attachment of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- in execution of a decree for money. The petitioner's contention that the application for execution was time barred was rejected on the ground that he had acknowledged his liability in Ext. A1 petition which he had filed within 12 years from the date of the decree in a proceeding in the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. The question for consideration is whether for the purpose of execution the period of limitation could be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was made, as provided under S.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. S.18 provides:

(2.) Clause (c) of the Explanation shows that an acknowledgment of liability does not have the effect postulated in sub-s.(1) of S.18 in respect of execution of a decree or order. The words "an application in respect of any property or right" appearing in sub-s.(1) do not take in an application for the execution of a decree or order.

(3.) In the circumstances, whatever acknowledgment that Ext. A1 contained, an application for execution which was filed more than 12 years from the date of the decree was clearly time-barred. The order of attachment under challenge is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.