Ramachandra Reddyar, P. vs Texco International

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The Petitioner is the judgment-debtor. Decree for money was passed against him on 10-11-1995. Decree amount was ` 14,913. For realising the decree amount and subsequent interest, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 100 of 2007. That Execution Petition was closed on 9-10-2009 granting instalment facility to the judgment-debtor. He did not pay the amount. Later, the decree-holder was constrained to file E.P. No. 199 of 2010. The judgment-debtor raised the plea of limitation. The order passed by the court below is not produced. However, the Petitioner produced the order dated 6th January, 2011 by which warrant was issued against him.

The contention of the Petitioner that the decree is barred by limitation is unsustainable. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides a period of limitation of 12 years for execution of any decree other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction. As against the column "the time from which period begins to run," Article 136 provides thus: "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 of which execution is sought, takes place".

In the present case, the subsequent order directs payment of money. The period of limitation has to be reckoned from that date. Even otherwise, the present Execution Petition is to be treated as a revival of the earlier Execution Petition where the judgment-debtor was granted time for payment of the decree amount in instalments. Where an Execution Petition is suspended by no act or default or. the part of the decree-holder, the subsequent Execution Petition filed by him can be treated as an application to revive the earlier execution proceedings. If the plea of the judgment-debtor is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences. For instance, a case where the Execution Petition is filed on the last day of limitation. On the plea of the judgment-debtor, in the peculiar facts of a particular case, the court may be inclined to grant time for payment or to provide a facility to him to pay the decree amount in instalments. In such cases, it is also common that the Execution Petition will be closed or dismissed. Does it mean that the decree-holder will lose the right to execute the decree thereafter? Does it mean that the order passed by the executing court granting instalment facility will have the result of destroying; the executability of the decree? Would it give an additional advantage to the judgment-debtor by virtue of the order granting him a facility? Certainly not. I have no hesitation to all to hold that the Execution Petition is not barred by limitation. No interference is called for in the order passed by the court. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a fervent plea that the Petitioner may be granted a breathing time to pay off the decree debt. For granting that relief, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the Respondent. The Petitioner shall deposit before the executing court 50% of the decree amount on or before 25-5-2011 and the balance decree amount on or before 30th June, 2011. The warrant for arrest issued against the Petitioner shall be kept in abeyance to facilitate payment of the decree amount as indicated above. If the Petitioner makes default in payment of the first instalment, the warrant against him shall be executed forthwith.