Ram Bachan Rai & Ors. Vs. Ram Udar Rai & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1995 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 729/94)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1995 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 729/94)
Petitioner: Ram Bachan Rai & Ors.
Respondent: Ram Udar Rai & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1995 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 729/94)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1995 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 729/94)
Judges: ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 18, 2006
Appearances:
Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Sudhanshu Saran and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Sudhanshu Saran and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LIMITATION
Limitation Act, 1963
Article 136 – Execution of decree – Period of Limitation – Whether starts from the date of decree or when decree becomes enforceable i.e. when it is signed. Held that there is some area of conflict amongst several two judge bench decisions. Reference has been made to three judge bench in Chiranji Lal’s case. Hence this case may be placed before CJI for appropriate orders to be placed alongwith Chiranji Lal’s case.
Limitation Act, 1963
Article 136 – Execution of decree – Period of Limitation – Whether starts from the date of decree or when decree becomes enforceable i.e. when it is signed. Held that there is some area of conflict amongst several two judge bench decisions. Reference has been made to three judge bench in Chiranji Lal’s case. Hence this case may be placed before CJI for appropriate orders to be placed alongwith Chiranji Lal’s case.
Cases Reffered:
1. Chiranji Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Hari Das (dead) by Lrs. (2005 (2) SCC 261) (Para 5)
2. Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Ors. v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (JT 2001 (6) SC 311) (Para 3)
3. W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (JT 1999 (6) SC 599) (Para 3)
4. Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant S. Lokhande & Anr. (JT 1995 (3) SC 186) (Para 5)
2. Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Ors. v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. (JT 2001 (6) SC 311) (Para 3)
3. W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (JT 1999 (6) SC 599) (Para 3)
4. Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant S. Lokhande & Anr. (JT 1995 (3) SC 186) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. The High Court of Patna dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the appellant summarily. Challenge in the Civil Revision was to the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, VII, Patna, in execution proceedings. By the said order Subordinate Judge held that the plea raised by the appellant about the execution petition being barred by time in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) was untenable.
2. Learned Subordinate Judge held that the period of limitation starts running not from the date of decree, but when the decree becomes enforceable i.e. when it is signed.
3. In support of the appeal strong reliance was placed on several decisions of this Court i.e. W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.1, Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Ors. v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors.1.
4. In Hameed Joharan’s case (supra) it was held after referring to the meaning to the word ‘enforce’ from various dictionaries words ‘when the decree or order becomes enforceable’ should be read in literal sense and as per intention of the legislators 12 years period is to be reckoned from the date the decree became enforceable i.e. the date of the decree or order.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the correct position of law is expressed in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant S. Lokhande & Anr.2 and in other two cases the correct principles in law were not kept in view. We find that there is some area of conflict amongst several two-judge Bench decisions. It is also to be noticed that noticing the conflict between these judgments, reference has been made to a three-Judge Bench in Chiranji Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Hari Das (dead) by Lrs.3.
1. The High Court of Patna dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the appellant summarily. Challenge in the Civil Revision was to the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, VII, Patna, in execution proceedings. By the said order Subordinate Judge held that the plea raised by the appellant about the execution petition being barred by time in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the ‘Limitation Act’) was untenable.
2. Learned Subordinate Judge held that the period of limitation starts running not from the date of decree, but when the decree becomes enforceable i.e. when it is signed.
3. In support of the appeal strong reliance was placed on several decisions of this Court i.e. W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.1, Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Ors. v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors.1.
4. In Hameed Joharan’s case (supra) it was held after referring to the meaning to the word ‘enforce’ from various dictionaries words ‘when the decree or order becomes enforceable’ should be read in literal sense and as per intention of the legislators 12 years period is to be reckoned from the date the decree became enforceable i.e. the date of the decree or order.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the correct position of law is expressed in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant S. Lokhande & Anr.2 and in other two cases the correct principles in law were not kept in view. We find that there is some area of conflict amongst several two-judge Bench decisions. It is also to be noticed that noticing the conflict between these judgments, reference has been made to a three-Judge Bench in Chiranji Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Hari Das (dead) by Lrs.3.
6. This case may also be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to be placed alongwith Chiranji Lal’s case (supra).
