Y LAKSHMAMMA Vs. G THYAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the period spent by the decree holder before the appellate Court where a limited stay was granted would save the period of limitation for the execution of the decree under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, in view of Section 15 of the Limitation Act is the question of law arises in this revision.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.548 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. THE respondent herein is the decree holder in the suit. I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in O.S.No.548 of 1995.

(3.) THEREAFTER, E.P.No.462 of 2004 was laid by the plaintiff on 28.06.2004. The judgment debtors raised an objection that the execution petition was not maintainable on the ground that the decree was executable within three years under Article 135 of the Limitation Act and whether counted from the date of decree before the trial Court which was 05.04.1999 or counted from the date of decree before the appellate Court which was 26.02.2001, the execution petition was laid beyond three years and that the execution petition consequently is not maintainable. The execution Court held that the execution petition was within time. The objection raised by the defendants was overruled. The execution Court, through the impugned order dated 15.09.2005 in E.P.No.462 of 2004, directed for the removal of the construction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.5057 of 2005. The High Court was pleased to allow the revision. The order in E.P. No.462 of 2004 was set aside. The execution petition was remanded to the execution Court for fresh consideration. THEREAFTER, the impugned orders were passed by the execution Court. The defendants once again preferred the present revision impugning the orders of the execution Court.