BtB^-WH^ 1 !• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Civil Revision No. 197 of 2004 Petitioner/DR.HR, Respondents/J.Drs. !Ti ;1 1 Smt Mahendra Kaur, aged about76 years, W/o Sardar Jogendra Singh R/o Old Poiice Lane, Sardar Chowk, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Smt Ragini Devi, widow of Late Shri Krishna Rao, aged about 70 yeare. 2. Ku. Nanda daughter of Late Shri Krishna Rao 3. Rakesh, son of Shri Krishna Rao 4. Ku. Maiti, Daughter of Late Shri KrishnaRao j 5. Ku.Jyoti, daughter of Late Shri Krishna Rao 6. Ku. Chanchala, D/o Late Shri Krishna Rao, 7. Ku. BharC, D/o Late Shri Krishna Rao 8. Deepak, son of Late Shri Krishna Rao, 9. Sanjay, son of Late Shri Krishna Rao, All major, residents of Guru Nanak Marg, Varasivni, Tahsil Varasivni, Distt.Balaghat(M.P.) 10. Smt. Ganga Bai, aged about 70 yeare, widow of Late Shri Shankar Rao. 11. Ku. Sandhya, D/o Late Shri Shankar Rao, resident of Old Police Lans, Sharda, Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. 12. Shri Rama Rao Vangatwar, clerk State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and Distr'ict Raipur (CG) ^ Petition under Section 115 of the Code of CivU Procedure Present: Shri G.D. Vaswani, counsel for the petitioner. None forthe respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 28.04.2008) s This civil revision is being disposed of finally, at the stage of admission. (2) Brief facte are that in civil suit No.34-A/1977, 5"* Civil Judge, Class-1, Raipur granted a decree fbr specific performance of contraet in favour of one Smt. Narayan Kaur on 20.3.1978. Pursuant to the judgment, decree was prepared on 27.3.1978. Execution was flled on 27.4.1978. After executing sale deed in tavour of the Decree Holder by the Executing Court on 22.2.1994, the application for execution of decree was dismissed. On 21.8.1995, Smt. Narayan Kaur fited an application for execution praying for being put in possession of the disputed house regarding which the sale deed was executed by the Executing Court in her favour. Although the Executing Court hetd thsrt even though the decree did not provide for delivery of possession, the possession of the property in question could be delwered to ttie Decree Holder in execution of the decree for specific performance of contract, it dismissed the application dated 21.8.1995 as barred by limitation i.e. having been presented after more than 12 yeare from the date of decree i.e. 27.3.1978. (3) Learned counset for the legal representatives of the Oecree Holder submitted that the Executing Court erred in reckoning frie period of limitation from the date of decree i.e. 27.3.1978 because the Decree Holder had, within timitation preferred an application for execution of the decree on 27.4.1978 and as late as on 22.2.1^4, after executing a sale deed in favour of the Decree Holder. fte application for execution was dismissed by the Executing Court. Upon dismissal of the application for execution, the Decree Holder was constrained to file a fresh application on 21.8.1995 for being put in possession of the properiy in question. The trial Court erred in Isw in dismissing the applicaUon on the ground of limitation. (4) Having considered the submission of the learned counset for ttie Decree Holder, 1 am ofthe considered opinion thatttie impugned order passed by the Executing Court is contrary to law. Under Article 138 of the Limitation Act, period of limitation of 12 years for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order 3- fS»sa>v». •%. ^.-;^"' of any civil Court b^ins to run when the decree or order becomes enforceable and in the present case, the Decree Holder had, after the passing of the decree on 27.3.1978, filed execution proceedings on 27.4.1978 and it was only after those proceedings cuhninated in execution of the sale deed by the Executing Court in favour of the Decree Holder on 22.2.1994 that a fresh application could be filed by the Decree Holder for being put in possession of the property in question. Since the eariier application for execution of the decree was dismissed by the Executing Court after executing a sale deed in favour of the Decree Holder on 22.2.1994, the second applicalion for execution of the decree for putting the Decree Hotder in possession of the property oughtto have been treated as in continuation of the earlier appiication for execution. (5) In this view of the matter, the Decree Holder having already initiated execution proceedings within timitadon on 27.4.1978 , ttie application dated 21.8.1995 for being put in possession could not be thrown out on the ground of limttation as it was an application in continuation of an eariier application for execution ofthe decree which was dismissed after executing the sale deed in favour of the Decrea Holder. (6) In this view of the matter, the revision is allowal. The impugned order whereby the application for execuBon was dismissed on the ground of limitation is set aside. — — - /-" //'' fc7 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya