WEST BENGAL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLY CORPORATION versus SWADESH AGRO FARMING AND STORAGE PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 14-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

WEST BENGAL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SUPPLY 
A 
CORPORATION 
v. 
SWADESH AGRO FARMING AND STORAGE 
PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED 
QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Limitation Act, 1963; Articles 136 and 12(2)-Execution of decree- C 
Claim for exclusion of period taken by Court for drawing up and signing the 
decree-Suit for recovery of amount-Decided on 8.3./982-Decree order 
actually drawn up and signed by Judge on 9. 8.1983-Application for 
execution of decree on 5.6.1995-Allowed-On appeal Division Bench of 
High Court setting aside the execution order on the ground that the execution D 
·· ·· petition was barred but limitation-Legality of-Held, the period of limitation 
staris from the date of decree and not from the date when it is actually drawn 
up and signed by Judge-Thus, High Court justified in setting aside the 
execution order on the ground of /imitation-Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Order 20 Rules 6-A and 7 and Order 21 Rule 11. 
Legal Ma"Cims : 
"Actus curia neminem gravbit"-Applicability of 
E 
Appellant filed a suit in the High Court against the respondents for 
recovery of certain amount with interest. On 8.3.1982, the High Court F 
decreed the suit ex-parte in favour of appellant. But, the decree was actually 
drawn up and signed by the Judge only on 9.8.1983. The appellant filed an 
application on 5.6.1995 for execution of the decree which was allowed. However, 
on appeal, Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of executing 
court holding that execution order was barred by limitation under Article 
136 of Limitation Act, 1963. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
The contentions of the appellant was that for purposes of Article 136 
of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation is not the date of the 
decree but the date when the decree becomes enforceable; it was only when 
the decree was actually drawn up and signed, after a lapse of one year and 
399 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A three months of delivering the judgment, that it become enforceable and from 
that date the appellant was entitled to the benefit of full period of limitation; 
so its application for execution could not be held to be barred by limitation; 
that due to the court taking more than a year and three months to draw up 
and sign the decree, the period of limitation of 12 years, available to the 
B appellant, is cut short so that starting point of limitation has to be computed 
from the date of signing of the decree to avert hardship and prejudice to him. 
The contention of the respondent was that under Rule 6-A(2)(b) of 
Order XX C.P.C., for purposes of execution of the decree the last portion of 
the judgment itself will be treated as a decree, irrespective of the date when 
C the decree is actually drawn up and signed and that under Rule 7 of Order 
XX C.P.C. the decree has to bear the date of judgment; from the date of 
judgment till the expiry of the period oflimitation, the decree holder had the 
opportunity of executing the decree so he cannot have any grievance for late 
drawing up of the decree and stampiag the date of the judgment on it; 
Executing Court might require the applicant seeking execution of the decree 
D under sub-rule (2) to produce a certified copy of the decree, but the execution 
petition need not be accompanied by a certified copy of the decree; Sections 
12(2) and 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to execution petitions and if 
the contentions of the appellant were to be accepted then it would amount to 
rewriting those provisions so as to provide for excluding the time for 
E preparation and signing of the decree. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The period oflimitation under Article 136 of the Limitation 
Act 1963 runs from the date of the decree and not from the date when the 
decree is actually drawn up and signed by the Judge. Thus, there is no 
illegality in the impugned judgment of the High Court. [409-F] 
1.2. Rule 6-A of Order XX of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 enjoins that 
the last paragraph of the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief 
which has been granted by such judgment. It has fixed the outer time limit 
G of 15 days from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment within which 
the decree must be drawn up. In the event of the decree not so drawn up, 
clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6-A enables a party to make an appeal under 
Rule 1 of Order XLI CPC without filing .a copy of th

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