CHHOTA RAM Vs. NAGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Chhota Ram and others (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sunam dated 24. 3. 1998. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners and directed the warrants of possession to be issued.

(2.) THE relevant facts are the Maya Devi had executed a mortgage deed in favour of Tara Chand. A civil suit was filed by Naginder Singh. The said suit had been decreed. The decree was passed on 18. 1. 1985. Petitioners preferred an appeal against this decree and judgment which was dismissed on 12. 10. 1989. During the pendency of the appeal, there was no stay of dispossession. The respondents on 19. 8. 1997 preferred an execution application seeking possession. The petitioners had preferred objections alleging that the decree is non- executable because the application was filed after 12 years of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the same was executable because there was no stay granted during the course of appeal. The learned Civil Judge, Sunam vide the impugned order held that the execution application was well within time and dismissed the objections. The other objections so raised which also did not find favour with the learned trial Court were not pressed in this Court. Therefore, the short question that was agitated and requires consideration is as to if the execution application was within time or not ? The facts are not in controversy as mentioned above that the execution application had been filed after 12 years of the judgment and decree of the trial Court but within 12 years after dismissal of the appeal. It is not in controversy that during the pendency of the appeal, there was no stay in the execution. It is in this background that the above said controversy arises.

(3.) IN the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 136 deals with the same and reads: Description of Period of Time from which period suit Limitation begins to run "136. For the Twelve Year (When) the decree or order execution of any becomes enforceable or where the decree (other than decree or any subsequent order function or order directs any payment of money or a mandatory the delivery of any property to injunction) or order be made at a certain date or at of any civil Court. recurring periods when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place : Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunctions shall not be subject to any period of limitation. "