Case title:
Shaifuddin (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Date of Order:
17th April, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol
Parties:
Appellant: Shaifuddin (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
Respondents: Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
SUBJECT:
- The appellants challenge the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's decision in Civil Revision No. 715/2002, which was rendered on January 4, 2006, through this appeal.
- This order is contested on the grounds that the execution application was submitted more than 12 years after the decree's date, making it legally ineligible.
- As a result, it is urged that the revisional Court's decision to reject the revision petition was improper.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- The aforementioned Article is specific in that it regulates and addresses petitions for the execution of decrees and orders.
- It states that execution proceedings must be initiated within 12 years of the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a specific date or at recurring periods when the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought is not made.
OVERVIEW:
The execution application was filed 12 years after the date of the decree, and hence was blocked by time. As a result, it is argued that the Revisional Court faulted in dismissing the revision petition.
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the date on which the compromise decree dated 26.04.1960 was entered into in Civil First Appeal No.11/1959 or the date when the Civil Court passed the final decree in Suit No. 30 A/87 i.e. 31.03.1994, will be considered for establishing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 for instituting execution proceedings?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- While dealing with the interpretation of Article 136 of the Act in Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal (2 judge bench), the Supreme Court made important remarks to the effect that:
- i. A decree or order becomes binding from its date;
- ii. In appropriate cases, the court passing the decree can establish the time from which the decree becomes enforceable on a date in the future.
- iii. The goal of an execution action is to allow the decree-holder to collect the rewards of his decree.
- iv. If there are two possible readings of a decree's language, one of which helps the decree-holder reap its benefits and the other of which inhibits him from doing so, the interpretation that helps the decree-holder should be accepted.
- v. A decree cannot become ineffective due to technicalities. In circumstances when a decree has been the subject of lengthy litigation and a fair construction is to be given to it, a reasonable approach is required.
- This Court (2-Judge Bench) concluded in Akkayanaicker v. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu & Anr. Based on the terms "when the decree or order becomes enforceable" in Article 136 of the Act, the starting point of limitation would be the date the decree becomes capable of execution.
- In Bimal Kumar v. Shakuntala Debi, the Supreme Court stated, "When does a decree become enforceable?
- Ordinarily, a decree or order becomes enforceable on the date it is issued. However, it is not uncommon for the decree to become enforceable at a later period or upon the occurrence of certain specified conditions.
- The term 'enforceable' has been used to refer to decrees or orders that become enforceable later."
- A review of clause 6 of the compromise decree dated 26.04.1960 in Civil First Appeal No. 11/1959 of the compromise decree reveals that the Appellant relinquished the land to the State Government throughout the pendency of the litigation.
- Notably, this compromise decree stipulated that if the Respondents (Decree holders) lost possession of the land due to such surrender, the Appellant (Judgement Debtor) would give the former 1 bigha and 5 Biswas.
- Given the foregoing, the Courts below correctly found that the Execution Application is within the Limitation Period. Before dismissing this Appeal, courts take note of the Decree holders' contention that the cheques, while received, were not given because the settlement collapsed.
- A comment like this is recorded. As a result, this Appeal is dismissed by the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION:
- The facts of the instant appeal show that the cause of action to implement the compromise decree arose when the premises were seized from the Decree holders' custody (Respondents Nos. 1 to 4).
- The Respondents' possession was affirmed by a final order issued by the Civil Court in Suit No.30 A/87 when rights in favor of a third party, Mr. Malik Ram, were fully determined.
- As a result, the court's opinion, the cause of action would emerge only on March 31, 1994. The defendants' possession, either de facto or de jure, is required for clause 6 to be enforceable.
- Examining at it from a different angle, it appears that clause 6 of the compromise decree could not have been carried out unless the Decree Holders lost their right of possession, which was not possible unless the Civil Court decisively determined such rights.
- As previously stated, the limitation period would begin only when the order becomes enforceable and hence executable. In this scenario, the relevant date from which the period of limitation will commence is just 31.03.1994.
- Because the period of twelve years is calculable from the aforementioned date, the Execution Application filed on 17.07.1995 falls within the Limitation.
- It should also be highlighted that the parties were given the opportunity to reach an agreement throughout the pendency of this appeal. However, no compromise could be reached.
