t^- 3N -iBtS HiKBi BQVKS 0F CHSWI'XSQSSSl &T B,E&ASP:BR KEV^leNER Mb&aNa'aaa' 92®tEE'HO&©ER 3BSBEBEKT laEB'EOR eivi3. RevlsAein H®»| -^B /2003. (^RaB^ai. S<t]Bta S/®Xate Kashi Prasad, ocisupatloa - Aiavosaey, resiaent of Ward No.15, Manenara- garh, Bistb. Kosea (Ex Dlstt. surgnja (c.e.). V ERS IT S Sfaly prateasfa s/@ Mofaaa Raghav aged abei.it S.I. years, aa.i.lway '. Ex resiclent ®fBaHaxaitaEK t, Maaenaragairli, .--- Bx-B.isfct- SurgBjs ( M.P.) Preseat; adelxress aii.tv Prakasb S/o MBban Raafaav. B.itesei Assa.shanfc BEj.verl, BAeseA &aeo Siaed. Nalfew Saaae^i Itofc.i.bagta,. NafiiBtU' tMabarashtFal»; exvu s.EVJSfioia fsJ'i'csQS BNB>@^ sgeiiioNls ®FpaevzNeaai SM&&& eWSE-eeUR'ES A®T, 1S§? ANB ®»I»ER_:©'IHBRiREI>EV;sm'l gRey^I'OHS. ®K•EHa USS ^) HK»1COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT m.ASPUR Sit'uateJBench: Hontte Shri Jusfce PnKihamt Kunnr Ufehra /l ClKU Reriston (i6^128 ot 21103 Ranpal Gupta Versus SWv Prakash ORDER Poatto* P-07-2010. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^:sa"2^: •ij.j-/ •/ a'S!llSB o' HIGH COURT OF CWWTTIS^tftH AT MJ PUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri JusAfee Prastauit Kumar KBshra REVISIONER PUtiNTiFF RESPONDENT DEFENDANT avu Civil ReviskMi No. "t2a <^2903 RsBn|»IGu{*a Vereus ShivPrataeh SWALL CAUSE COIBCTS ACT. WKWISIOMS OFTIIEtlW Shri Parag Krtecha, counsel fortheapplicant. None for the non-applicant ORDER i^sfr.sgym Heard. (2) The clecree hoteta- has pretered this revl^qn umKff i|ertim 25 of the Provincial Small Caftise Courts Act, 1887 chaUenglng the order passed by the execuBng Court in ExecijUon Caee No. 1/86 on 31 -01 -2003 dtemissh^ the exect<ion appBcation ffled by the appUcanl^ barred by limltation. (3) Plaintiff/ctecree hokler preterT^ sirall oaisej^ ^^^^^^ the non-g^icant/judgmertctebtorforre(»yery^cta(nsg^crfRs3 snall was day w.e.f. 14-(^1S^. The non-appHcantappaared bi^ftmj^ cause Coint birt teter on proeeeded ®c-parteand ai ©f-ps^tedteGre^' passed again^ Wm on 03-11-1987 (firedmg him to pay R8.20 |>BrjEtey to the plaintiff from 14-03-1%»UU vtacsting the (»®mises. (4) The anrftoant moved an ^tpfcatton for exeuiUon <rf ttie T ^ ! ' ' ^ l on 05-04-2000. The ncUce of execiffion was serviBti af cs«y r:^y :.^r o /}y -.2 -appticant on 08-07-2000. On OlrlO-2002 the execuUiig Coirt c(irected thsrt the noMpiriteart's salary be aUached for mooveiy of the decreetal amount. The non-^pUcant thereafter (»eferred two appltoaUons on 04-12-2002 oneunder SecBon 151 af C.P.C. for dismissing the execdton bdng barred t»y IhnftaUw aid the cftier for se*ting aside ex-parte order passed in execution case. The apFdtoant fited hte refty to <he non-a^toatfs spfSoaS&sin and stated that since the damsges has been calculated @ Rs.20 per day tiB remova! of Utegal (X»8eaffon, M te a decree wrtuch i»fficurring in nature and the cause of adtan for flfcig the execufflon ^splteaBmt accrues on eacti day when the non-applteant has not removed his in^al possesaton and has teiled to make paymert of decreetal amwait (6) The executtng Court, by the ^npugMd onter has cBsmissed the apiMtcation Tor exeadton on Uie yound ttiat the ajqalteatton having teen preferred mwe than 12 yeare after the date <rf decree ft is barred by Umitation. (7) Counsel for e applteant has sidmdlted Uwrt theteaaned Wal Court has committed a serious wror of law for his jurisdtetion tof dtemissing l^s awtication for execirtion whteh was s^iarenBy wfthln limitatkm. (8) For mowng anappltoaMon tor executton crf a decree other tharf a <tecree granfi^ a mandatory iiqunction the patod of 12 y^ire has be«) pr^cribed unda- Arttole 136 of the UmBaBon Ad. AriWe 136 srfso prescrtoes as to wtwn ttw BmttaUm aS 12 years woutd begtn to (un. Tljie ^id limftation of 12 yeare, as per Arttete 195, woiMd beit®wh«ithei 1 i ^ -5- •^ decree or oreler becomes enftxceable or where tte ctecree or k subsequent order direds any paymert of money or Uw (toUvery of any prcyerty to be made al a certain date w at reaOTtoig pertocte, when defautt in mattii^ flte payment or d^ivery tn teapKA oC whtoh exeaUon is saght, takes pteue. (9) In the matter of W. BL Esseitfiay CoflnnocBliGS &inrt&r Cwpwvffcm Ws. Swadesh Agn» Faonlng A Sfioiqge Pyt £Mand «OTo<fterreported in f999 W w!c 31S <he HonWe Si^xeme Court hss hetd Uiat a rwmwf decree wartl be enfwc«datefrcan the date of the judgment and ttiat fte pertod of BmttaUon und» Aittste 136 of the Limitation Act runs ftom the dirte <rf the decree. (10) The nature of e decree in the present case Is not recurring because the decree does not (Brect ttw juclgment ctebtor to med» payment of Ihe amourt rt tegula' irtervate. The damages @ Rs. 2Q/- per day is onfy Vhe rats at whteh the amourt of daanages ia to be ptfd and ftat there is no cnractkm in the decree Ihat ft wM be paud every day, ir^tead, the decree dlrects that ttwiU be paid till the Megd possessfin te not vacated. Nowftiere in Uie dewee it is cBFectettthat the dansgw ^B(I be paid by the juc^mert debtor ^ther quarterty.or haff ^safyw 'fsasfy. Thus ie periodof timtotion in the presert csee wouU run from the date of judgment and not from ttie dafte when the juc^mert ctebtor ftdefl to make paymert of ttie amourrt for any p»toctdurii^ Ihe (11) The jw^mert and decree, (n U<e preasrt (ase, was deBvwetllon 03-11-1^7. The execuGon a^lcatton wss filesl on 05JO»4-2DOO, 'nius i:. a liB |i.w?< .1. .'..'•• ;? '"^"s^^^^^—-^ 1 ^ss-^'jy ''*,. '!'^y -^ the execution appttoation vas ffled ian»' a period of 12 yeare as prescribect under Arttele 136 of UmftaUon Act. The exscyUon was thus apparently barred by limltaUon. (12) In Bw result it is hdd that the executtng Cwst ha»not oommKted any tll^aBty nor hs©a^edwfth materid irregidartty in hcfchg ttiat the ex^suUon en>8calion was baned by Umilatlon. (13) The rewsion p^ttton faite and is hereby cBsnmssed. • '—s'^a •1 is • M^ !SI • i^^B » 1 i 1