TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore 23.9.1966. (2) That the plaintiff do deposit into court on or before 23.9.1966 the balance of the sale price for 13 grounds and 491 sq. ft. on measurement and demarcation. (3) That on such measurement and demarcation and fixation of the price and on deposit the defendant do execute the sale deed in respect of the suit house-sites in favour of the plaintiff at her costs as agreed and in default the court do execute the sale deed on application of the plaintiff and the cost of the execution of such sale deed be recovered from the defendant. (4) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of ₹ 1,423/- being costs of this suit and do bear his own costs of ₹ 507.50. The decree-holder deposited the balance of the sale price by 23.9.1966 but the measurement and demarcation was not done by the judgment-debtor on or before 23.9.1966, the time fixed for the purpose. After a lapse of more than six years the measurement and demarcation of the land was done by the judgment-debtor in the year 1973. Thereafter the decree-holder filed the execution petition on 19.4.1980 being E.P. No.346/1981 for executing the decree for specific performance of the contract pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirmed the order passed by the appellate court. The High Court observed that there is no condition in the decree that the judgment-debtor can measure and demarcate the land as and when she pleases and the decree-holder could approach the Execution Court only after such measurement and demarcation. Therefore, the Execution Petition filed on 19.4.1980 was beyond the period of 12 years from 23.9.1966 and hence it was liable to be dismissed as time barred. The revision petition filed by the decree- holder was dismissed. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed by the decree-holder. The provision of Limitation Act, 1963 which is applicable in this case is Article 136 which reads as under: Description of application Period of Limitati on Time from which period begins to run 136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. Twelve years (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 certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the defendant. Such a decree cannot be said to be a conditional one, in the sense that the plaintiff could not enforce his rights under the decree till defendant carried out the direction under the decree for measurement and demarcation of the land. The position is well settled that ordinarily a decree becomes enforceable immediately after the judgment is pronounced. However, there may be situations when a decree may not be enforceable on the date it is passed. Usually this situation arises where in the decree itself the right of the decree-holder depends on happening of certain event or on fulfillment of certain other conditions by the parties in the case or by an external agency, under any provision of law. This position has been clarified in the case of W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. Vs. Swadesh Agro Farming Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Another (1999) 8 SCC 315). Therein this Court repelling the impression that a decree becomes enforceable only when it is drawn up and signed, observed: From a perusal of the article extracted above, it is clear that for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of a civil court, a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efers an appeal, much less can he claim to deduct time taken by the court in drawing up and signing the decree. In this view of the matter, the High Courts of Patna and Calcutta in Chandra Mouli Deva v. Kumar Binoya Nand Singh (AIR 1976 Pat 208) and Sunderlal Sons v. Yagendra Nath Singh (AIR 1976 Cal 471) have correctly laid down the law; the opinion to the contra expressed by the High Court of Calcutta in Ram Krishna Tarafdar v. nemai Krishna Tarafdar (AIR 1974 Cal 173) is wrong. Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application; Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is also inapplicable to an execution petition. If the time is reckoned not from the date of the decree but from the date when it is prepared, it would amount to doing violence to the provisions of the Limitation Act as well as of Order 20 and Order 21 Rule 11 CPC which is clearly impermissible. Taking note of exceptions in certain cases to the general rule referred to above this Court observed: There may, however, be situations in which a decree may not be enforceable on the date it is passed. First, a case where a decree is not executable until the happening of a given contingency, for example, when a decree for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interpreting the decree in that case the High Court observed In the instant case there was a clear obstacle to the immediate execution of the decree. Under the terms of the compromise decree it was obligatory for the decree-holder to serve two months notice on the judgment-debtor calling upon him to remove the constructions and delivering possession that the decree- holder was entitled to execute the decree for possession; immediate execution of the decree was therefore negatived by the terms of the compromise decree. This decision in our view is clearly distinguishable on facts. Even accepting the principles referred to therein it cannot be said that in the present case the decree passed was a conditional or contingent one. The fixation of periods of limitation are bound to be to some extent arbitrary and may at times result in hardship. But in construing such provisions equitable considerations are out of place and the strict grammatical, meaning of the words is the only safe guide. (See AIR 1932 PC 165). The decree was enforceable immediately after the date specified in the decree i.e. 23.9.1966 for the decree-holder to deposit the consideration money. If the direction giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
