IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2133 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 30, 2010 Ram Lok and others. …Petitioners Versus Darshan Kumar and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rupnagar, thereby dismissing the applications moved by the decree holder for revival of the execution applications No. 95 dated 27.09.1986 , Execution No. 10 of 13.02.1995 and Execution No. 163 dated 16.12.1996. C.R. 2133 of 2010 The brief facts of the present case are that on 06.05.1980 in a case titled as “Bachan Ram vs. Ram Singh etc.”, decree for possession was passed in favour of the decree holder – petitioners herein. Thereafter, decree holder moved an execution application bearing No. 95 dated 27.09.1986 for issuance of warrants of possession, however, warrants of possession could not be issued due to non-filing of copy of decree and other documents. Ultimately, execution application was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.1988 and the execution file was consigned to the record room. Thereafter, another execution application No. 10 dated 13.02.1995 was moved by the decree holder which was again directed to be consigned to the record room vide order dated 21.09.1996 for non-filing of the documents required by the learned Executing Court. Thereafter, third execution application No.163 of 16.12.1996 was moved in which objections were raised by the judgment debtor that execution application is time barred for the execution of decree passed on 06.05.1980. Vide order dated 27.03.2002, execution application was dismissed as time barred. Order dated 27.03.2002 was challenged before this Court. This Court, on 20.01.2004 passed the following order:- “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision petition may be dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to the petitioners to get their earlier execution application revised. 2 C.R. 2133 of 2010 Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as aforesaid. It is made clear that if any such application is moved by the petitioner – decree holders before the executing court then the same shall be decided without being influenced by the order dated March 27, 2002.” After the dismissal of revision by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2004 instead of moving revival application in accordance with law and liberty obtained from this Court, decree holder moved another execution application No. 95 dated 27.09.2006 which too was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2007. Thereafter, decree holder moved an application for revival of execution No.10 of 13.2.1995. The learned Executing Court allowed the revival application. However, thereafter, decree-holder has withdrawn the execution No. 10 of 13.02.1995 vide statement dated 08.12.2007. Thereafter, decree holder moved another application for the revival of the execution application No. 163 dated 16.12.1996, Execution No. 10 dated 13.02.1995 and Execution No.95 dated 27.09.1986. The learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 31.07.2009 dismissed the revival application. Learned Executing Court has held that after revival of Execution No. 10 of 13.02.1995, decree holder has withdrawn execution No. 10 of 13.02.1995 vide statement dated 08.12.2007, hence, present revival application is not maintainable. It was further observed by the learned Executing Court that decree is of 06.05.1980 and revival of 3 C.R. 2133 of 2010 execution application was moved after the expiry of limitation, hence is time-barred. Feeling aggrieved from the order impugned, present petition is filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that since first execution application was moved within time, hence revival thereof cannot be refused on the ground execution has become time-barred. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that petitioners – decree holders are seeking revival of the execution applications after expiry of the limitation for the execution of the decree. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents – judgment debtors that earlier also execution application No.10 dated 13.02.1995 was revived, however, same was withdrawn by the decree-holder himself on 08.12.2007, hence there is no question of revival of the execution application. Article 136 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- Article 136 of the Limitation Act Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 4 C.R. 2133 of 2010 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 of which execution is sought, takes place: Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limition.” As per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, execution for decree for possession can be applied within 12 years from the date of decree. Undisputedly, first execution application was moved by the decree holder i.e. execution no. 95 of 27.09.1986 which was well within time. However, it was directed to be dismissed vide order dated 01.09.1988. No revival application was moved for recalling the order dated 01.09.1988 and to restore the execution case at its original number within 12 years. Undisputedly second execution application No.10 of 5 C.R. 2133 of 2010 13.02.1995 was moved after the expiry of 12 years from the date of decree dated 06.05.1980, hence, second Execution application itself was time barred. However, learned Executing Court, as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2004 considered the revival of the execution No. 10 dated 13.02.1995, and revived the execution at its original number which was later on withdrawn by the decree holder himself vide his statement dated 08.12.2007. Undisputedly, third execution application No. 113 dated 16.12.1996 was moved by the decree-holder, after 12 years from the date of decree dated 06.05.1980 which itself was time barred. However, the same was also dismissed on 27.03.2002. In my considered view, execution application for enforcement of decree for possession must be filed within 12 years from the date of judgment/decree. If execution application, however, is filed within limitation prescribed but dismissed then its revival/restoration must be filed within reasonable time. If execution application is allowed to remain dismissed for 12 years then its revival/restoration would be in violation of Article 136 of Limitation Act. Hence, revival of first execution after limitation is not possible. In my further opinion since, 2nd and 3rd execution applications were moved after twelve years from the date of decree, hence, their revival shall not serve any purpose. Moreover, third execution application No.163 had already 6 C.R. 2133 of 2010 been dismissed as time barred vide order dated 27.03.2002 and revision against it was dismissed as withdrawn, now there is no question to revive this third execution application. I do not find any merit in the petition, which is liable to dismissed, hence is dismissed. August 30, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 7