DAVID VARGHESE Vs. MADHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree holder in E. P. 223 (a)/81 in O. S. 2/66 of the Munsiff Court, changanassery is the revision petitioner. THE E. P. was dismissed by the executing court on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE decree was dated 5-2-66. E. P. 310/67 was filed on 17-6-67. That E. P. was dismissed on 17-1-68. THE present E. P. has been filed 12 years after the dismissal of the previous E. P.

(3.) THIS is a case where the execution petition was posted (or enquiry after judgment debtor filed his counter statement. Decree holder's e. P. happened to be dismissed. In a case where the E. P. has been dismissed for statutory purpose or consequent to the stay by the appellate court the position is that the dismissal was on account of no fault of the decree holder. The same is not the position in a case where the E. P. happened to be dismissed when it is posted for enquiry. In the former case, decree holder cannot at all be blamed as E. P. happened to be dismissed due to reasons beyond his control. In such a case decree holder will have to file E. P. within the period of limitation. As the E. P. is filed beyond time it is barred by limitation.