K VENKATA SUBBAYYA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order of the District Munsif, Kalahasti, in E. P. No. 186 of 1963 in Writ Petition No. 1011 of 1957 on the file of this Court, holding that the execution petition filed by the respondent-decree-holders is within time under Art. 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

(2.) The short facts leading to the filing of the execution petition by the decree holders in the writ petition are the following:- The writ filed by the petitioner-judgment-debtor was dismissed with costs of the respondents. To execute the decree, awarding costs to the respondents, a civil miscellaneous petition No. 6835 of 1963 was filed for transmission of the decree and the decree was transmitted to the Court of the District Munsif, Kalahasti. Then an execution petition was filed on 28-10-1963. The judgment-debtor contended that since the decree is dated 4-9-1959 and the execution petition was filed on 28-10-1963, the petition is barred by limitation under Article 182 of the old Limitation Act. The case of the respondent was that it is a decree of the High Court and that Art. 183 applies, which provides twelve years period of executing the decree of a Court established by Royal Charter. The District Munsif held that the High Court of Judicature, Madras, was established by Royal Charter and the Andhra Pradesh High Court is the successor High Court to the former High Court and therefore, it is Article 183 that applies as such the execution petition filed is within time.

(3.) Mr. P.A. Chowdhary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies only for the enforcement of a decree of any Court established by Royal Charter in the exercise of "its ordinary original civil jurisdiction" and it can have no application when the High Court passed a decree in exercise of its special original jurisdiction and the relevant provision is Article 182 which provides for the execution of a decree of "any civil Court, not provided for by Article 183 or Section 48 of the Code of the Civil Procedure" The second contention of Mr. P.A. Chowdary is that although the High Court of Andhra is a successor Court to the High Court of Madras created by Royal Charter, it is all the same not a High Court established by Royal Charter and that under the States Re-organisation Act (Act XXXVII of 1956), the jurisdiction of the then existing State of Andhra was extended to the whole of the territories transferred to the State from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and therefore, Article 183 can have no application to a decree by a High Court not established by the Royal Charter.