RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS. versus RAM UDAI RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 05-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM BACHAN RA! AND ORS. 
.. , 
v. 
RAM UDAI RA! AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 2006. 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.JX Rule 13, O.XY R. 7. O.X¥1 R .. 22 
and Rule 58; Ss. 47, I I 5/Limitation Act, Article 136: 
c 
Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession-Decreed ex-
parte by trial Court-Filing of an application under 0. IX R .. 13 CPC by 
judgment debtors for setting aside ex-pa rte decree-Dismissed for default by 
trial Court-Revision petition dismissed by High Court--Fi/ing of an 
application.for execution of decree-Dismissed by the Executing Court holding 
D that the period cf limitation had to be counted from the date of dismissal of 
the Revision by the High Court--On appeal Held: the application for execution 
was clearly time-barred as having been filed beyond the period of limitation 
of 12 years in terms of Article I 36 of the Limitation Act -
Both the Executing 
Court and the High Court erred in not concluding the application for 
execution of the decree as time barred 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as to when 
would the period of limitation for execution of a decree commence in terms of 
Article 136 of the Limitation Act. 
Appellant, the judgment debtor, contended that the High Court was not 
F justified in summarily rejecting the Civil Revision; that the Executing Court 
had erroneously held that the period of limitation had to be reckoned with 
effect from the date of dismissal of the Civil Revision; and that Article 136 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for a period of 12 years for filing of an 
application for execution of a decree for recovery of immovable property; and 
G that since the application was filed on 5.4.1991, it was barred by limitation. 
Respondents submitted that the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1976 was 
passed in the suit admittedly under Order XX Rule 7 of the CPC; and that as 
the cost for enforcement of the decree was not ql!antified, the period of 
limitation could not have commenced from the date of judgment and the decree. 
d 
H 
896 
RAM BACHAN RAI v. RAM UDAI RAI (PASA Y AT, J.] 
897 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
. ., 
HELD: The entire focus was on the date from which the period of 
limitation is to be reckoned. The application for execution filed on 5.4.1991 
was clearly time-barred as having been filled beyond the period of twelve years 
prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the High Court as 
well as the Executing Court committed illegality in coming to a conclusion B 
that it was not barred by limitation. Therefore, the inevitable result is that 
the order passed by the High Court and the Executing Court cannot be 
maintained and is set aside. (900-G-H; 901-A) 
Chiranjilal (dead) by LRs. v. Hari Das (d) by LRs., (2005) 2 SCC 261, c 
relied on. 
Ram Nath Das and Ors. v. Saha Chowdhury and Co, Ltd. & Ors., AIR 
(1974) Cal. 246, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. I JOO of2000. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1995 of the High Court of 
Patna iii Cr.No. 729/1994. 
S. Chandra Shekhar for the Appellants. 
S.8. Sanyal and Akhilesh Kumar Pandey for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a 
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court summarily rejecting the Civil 
Revision filed by the appellants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil F 
Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). 
The Civil Revision was filed against the order of the Executing Court 
allowing the application for execution of a decree which was passed more 
than 14 years ago. 
G 
A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. 
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery 
of possession in which the appellants had appeared and filed a written 
... 
statement. The suit was decreed ex parte as the defendants did not appear H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A on the date fixed. The ex parte decree in the concerned suit was passed on 
3.5.1976. No appeal was, however, filed against the aforesaid judgment and 
... ~
decree. The present appellants who are the judgment debtors filed an 
application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree 
which was dismissed for default on 14.7.1978. The said application was not 
B 
restored by the trial Court and a Miscellaneous Appeal filed also stood 
dismissed on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.