In a revision petition, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal against the trial court's order dismissing an execution application filed 35 years after the decree date as time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to the lack of a judgment copy and default in execution within the twelve-year period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CR No. 20 of 2022
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For applicant : Mr. Roop Naik, Adv. For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Govt. Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board
4-8-2023
1. This revision petition has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 17-1-2019 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class – 2, District Raigarh, whereby the application for execution of judgment and decree dated 16-111984 passed in Civil Suit No. 176-A/1981, filed by the applicant has been dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation.
2. On being inquired, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he is not having copy of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in above civil suit. Even he is not having copy of the order passed by the appellate Court. In other words, the applicant is not having any such document, which would demonstrate that what relief was granted to the applicant. In absence of any such authentic document, execution cannot be effected. Further, as per submission, alleged judgment and decree was passed in favour of the applicant on 16-11-1984 and instant execution proceeding was initiated by him on 4-1-2019, therefore, learned trial Court has dismissed the execution proceedings holding that it is barred by limitation.
3. Here, Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is relevant and reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-
| Description of suit |
Period of limitation |
Time from which period begins to run | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 136. | For the |
Twelve | Where the decree or order becomes |
| execution of any | years | enforceable or where the decree or any | |
| decree (other |
subsequent order directs any payment of |
2
| than a decree granting a mandatory |
money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the |
|---|---|
| injunction) or order of any civil |
payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place: |
| court. | Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. |
4. Perusal of aforesaid provision and facts of the instant case show that the applicant ought to have filed execution application within 12 years from the date of passing of judgment and decree, but it has been filed by him after about 35 years, which is clearly time barred. Further, the applicant has not filed any document like judgment and decree, which can be executed. Even the applicant is also not able to apprise the fact that what relief was granted to him by filing any lawful document.
5. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the execution application filed by the applicant on the ground of barred by limitation.
6. Hence, the revision being sans substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge
Pathak
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for execution filed 35 years after the decree is time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the absence of a certified copy of the judgment and decree prevents the court from examining the nature of relief granted.
Whether the revision against the dismissal of the execution application on limitation grounds deserves to be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gaurishankar Patwa
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
