: 1 : chs-1075-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER OF SUMMONS NO. 1075 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.209 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO.610 OF 1993 M/s. Maheshwari Polyspin Pvt. Ltd. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Ratan Nemichand Jain & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. S.P. Kanuga for the plaintiffs Mr. A.M. Sarogi for applicant in CHS ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C. : 1. This chamber summons is taken out by defendant nos. 1 to 3 praying that execution application has become infructuous and is barred by period of limitation and as such it should not be proceeded further. Affidavit-in-reply is filed opposing the chamber summons. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. It is noted that decree in the present suit came to be passed on 19th October 1993. The application for execution came to be filed in this Court on 16th July, 2004 and thereafter the same is pending. : 2 : chs-1075-10=.sxw 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) provides limitation period for execution of application. Learned Counsel for the defendants pointed out that as per the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and in particular Article 136, a decree can be executed within a period of 12 years. He submitted that this would mean that the entire process of execution must get over within a span of 12 years and if the execution of the decree remains pending beyond the period of limitation from the date of decree, the execution cannot be taken ahead and execution application is required to be dismissed. He submitted that though the execution application was filed in the year 2004, no active steps have been taken within a period of 12 years i.e. upto 18th October, 2005 and, therefore, execution application should be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs opposed this submission by contending that steps are being taken to execute the decree. Description of the properties mentioned in the execution application required rectification and the corrections have been carried out in June, 2010 and the plaintiffs are in the midst of execution. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that execution application is not barred by the period of limitation as it has been filed within the period of : 3 : chs-1075-10=.sxw limitation and the process of execution is pending and in any case, the process of execution being on going process, it cannot halt soon after completion of period of limitation of the 12 years from the passing of the decree. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs pressed for dismissal of the chamber summons. 5. Having heard learned Counsels on both sides, I am inclined to dismiss the chamber summons. The argument based on the application of Article 136 of the Limitation Act is completely misconceived. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 impose restriction of a period to institute certain proceedings including application for execution. Reading of Article 136 would clearly go to show that an application for execution must be filed within a period of 12 years from the date of the decree. Argument advanced by learned Counsel for the applicants that the execution must get over within a period of 12 years from the date of decree is misconceived and cannot be accepted. The intention of the legislature in framing the Limitation Act, 1963 was only to control the activity of a person who wants to file certain proceedings. By the said Article 136, a successful judgment creditor is required to lodge application for execution within a period of limitation. Reading of Article 136 or even the other provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, nowhere show that soon after completion of the period of 12 years, the : 4 : chs-1075-10=.sxw process of execution must stop. In the present case, if it is accepted for time being that after lodgment of the execution application, no warrant of attachment has been levied on the movable or immovable properties mentioned in the application that by itself is not sufficient to say that the application for execution has become un-enforcible after completion of 12 years. 6. In my view, once application for execution is lodged within a period of limitation, it has to be taken to its logical end and for having further steps in the execution application, there is no period of limitation and decree passed and once sought to be executed shall remain is executable decree till the same is satisfied. 7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the chamber summons is required to be dismissed. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)