UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOTI RAM BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Union of India against the order of the lower Court dismissing an execution application as barred by time.

(2.) The facts are that on 12-8-1935 the Secretary of State for India in Council obtained a decree for Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- odd as costs against Moti Ram respondent in a Delhi court. The first execution application was dismissed on 4-11936. An application for transferring the decree for execution to Agra was granted and the execution remained pending in the court at Agra until January 1950. In the meantime another execution application was filed and dismissed at Delhi in 1939 and in 1942 Moti Ram applied under Sections 151 and 152 C. P. C. for amendment of the decree which was amended by an order dated 5-6-1942. By this amendment the costs in the said suit were reduced by about Rs. 300/-. The present application was filed on 24-1-1951.

(3.) In holding that the execution application was barred by time the lower court has relied on the provisions of Section 48 C. P. C. which reads : "48. (1) Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from - (a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or, (b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree." Apparently reliance was placed on the provisions of Article 182 of the Limitation Act by which period of three years is fixed for the execution of a decree of a Civil Court other than the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Clause 4 of Article 182 fixes a period of three years from the date of the amendment where a decree has been amended. The lower court took the view that provisions of Section 48 C. P. C., which did not contain any similar provision, were not affected by anything in Article 182 of the Limitation Act.