RATAN SINGH versus VIJAY SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 11-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RATAN SINGH 
v. 
VIJAY SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Law of Limitation : 
Limitation Act, 1963/Limitation Act, 1908-Article 136/Article 182-
C Decree-EriforceafJi!ity of-Appellant-decree holder initiating the execution 
process after a long time contending that it was within /imitation as time 
would run from the date of dismissal of the second appeal~ Second appeal 
dismissed being barred by /imitation-Held, dismissal of an appeal as time 
barred is not a decree as there is no adjudication which could be said to 
D have determined the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the 
matters in controversy conclusively- -In the present case, the decree became 
enforceable when the fir~'f appellate court passed the decree which superseded 
the decree of the trial court. As no decree was passed in the second appeal, 
the decree of the first appellate court remained unaffected-Held, in the 
circumstances, the execution process initiated long after the expiry of 12 
E years from the passing of the decree by the first appellate court, is irretrievably 
barred-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908----Sections 2(2) and 115. 
The appellant secured a decree for possession of the suit property. 
However, the execution of the decree was not applied for. The respondent/ 
F judgment debtor filed First Appeal against it but the same was dismissed. The 
Second Appeal filed by respondent/judgement debtor against the decree and 
judgement of the first appellate court was also rejected by the High Court on 
the ground that the delay in filing the Second Appeal was not properly 
explained. 
G 
An execution petition was filed after expiry of a long time after the 
rejection of the aforesaid Second Appeal. The Execution Court resuscitated 
the decree with the help of the order passed in the Second Appeal as the 
execution petition was filed within 12 years of the passing of the aforesaid 
order. However, in revision the District Court reversed the order of the 
H Execution Court The petition filed before the High Court was not entertained 
510 
RAlA:-.J SINGH v. VIJA Y SINGH 
511 
as the revisional powers of the High Court had already been exercised by the A 
District Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that dismissal of the Second 
Appeal would make the position different as time would run from the date of 
such dismissal; that the interpretation of law of limitation should be such as 
to prevent the seuttling of the remedy. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. The decree became enforceable when the appellate court 
passed the decree which superseded the decree of the trial court. As no decree C 
was passed by the High Court in the second appeal, inasmuch as it was 
dismissed being barred by limitation, the decree of the first appellate court 
remained unaffected and the enforceability once commenced remained 
undisturbed for a period of 12 years therefrom. The execution process initiated 
by the appellant long after the expiry of 12 years from the date of passing of 
the decree by the first appellate court, is thus irretrievably barred. 
D 
(516-H; 517-A, B( 
1.2. In order that decision of a court should become a decree there must 
be an adjudication in a suit and such adjudication must have determined the 
rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in E 
the suit and such determination must be of a conclusive nature. If those 
parameters are to be applied then rejection of application for condonation of 
delay will not amount to a decree. Consequently, dismissal of an appeal as 
time barred is also not a decree. In such a situation the mere fact that the 
second appeal was dismissed as a corollary to the dismissal of application for 
condonation of delay has no effect on the decree passed by the first appellate F 
court. (515-F; 516-CI 
Shyama Pada Choudhary v. Saha Choudhary & Cu. & Ors., AIR (1976) 
Calcutta 122, affirmed. 
Mamuda Khutcen and Ors. v. Beniyan Bibi and Ors., AIR (1976) 
Calcutta 415, relied on. 
G 
Anandilal & Anr. v. Ram Narain and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1383, referred 
to. 
Nagendra Nath Dey and Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Dey and Ors., AIR 
(1932) PC 165, held inapplicable. 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.CR. 
A 
2. Filing of an appeal would not affect the enforceability of the decree, 
unless the appellate court stays its operation. But if the appeal results in a 
decree 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.