THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5805 of 2006 Date:29th March, 2010 Between: Smt.Velagala Simhachalam W/o.Muthyalu ….Petitioner and 1. Smt. Karaka Varahalamma & Anr. .…Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5805 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.09.2005 passed in E.P.No.35 of 2004 in O.S.No.71 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/decree holder in E.P.No.35 of 2004 in O.S.No.71 of 1981 are: Karaka Suri along with 4 others filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits against Karaka Varahalamma and Velagala Yerrayyamma in respect of suit schedule property. The suit came to be decreed on 20.07.1988 declaring that Velagala Simhachalam-2nd plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property and that she is entitled to recover vacant possession of the same and also to mesne profits. The defendants filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.07.1988 passed in O.S.No.71 of 1981. They also moved I.A.No.762 of 1992 in O.S.No.71 of 1981 to condone the delay of 336 days in filing the petition to set aside t h e ex parte decree. The said application ended in dismissal on 28.06.1993. They assailed the order dated 28.06.1993 passed in I.A.No.762 of 1992 in O.S.No.71 of 1981 by filing CRP No.2202 of 2000. The said revision ended in dismissal on 25.07.2000. Velagala Simhachalam/2nd plaintiff filed E.P.No.35 of 2004 under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC seeking delivery of possession of the properties through the process of Court. It appears Velagala Yerrayyamma died leaving behind Karaka Varahalamma as her sole legal heir. Karaka Varahalamma resisted the execution application by filing counter. The plea taken by Karaka Varahalamma in the execution petition is that the decree is barred by limitation and thereby it has become unenforceable. The executing Court considered the rival contentions of the parties and came to the conclusion that the E.P. has been filed after lapse of 12 years from the date of decree and thereby the decree has become unenforceable and accordingly, dismissed the E.P., by order dated 06.09.2005. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. The CRP came to be admitted on 14.09.2007. The 1st respondent/J.Dr No.1 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/J.Dr. No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submits that the first respondent along with Velagala Yerrayyamma filed revision before this Court assailing the order dated 28.06.1993 passed in I.A.No.762 of 1992 and ultimately the revision ended in dismissal on 25.07.2000 and the said period i.e. from the date of filing to the date of dismissal of the revision is to be excluded while counting the period of 12 years as provided under Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) and in which case, the execution petition filed by the petitioner is well within the time and thus, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside and consequently, the E.P. is to be restored to file for passing further orders with regard to delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/JDr No.1 submits that though the revision has been filed by Karaka Varahalamma and Velagala Yerrayyamma, this Court did not pass any interim orders staying the execution of the decree and in which case, the pendency of the revision before this Court is of no consequence for counting the period of limitation as provided under Article 136 of the Act. 7. Under Article 136 of the Act, limitation provided for filing petition for execution of the decree for recovery of possession is 12 years from the date of decree. Indisputably, the date of decree in the instant case is 20.07.1988. Though the judgment debtors filed CRP 2202 of 2000 assailing the order passed in a petition filed under Section 5 of the Act, execution of the decree was not stayed in the said revision. Therefore, pendency of the revision is of no consequence so far as counting the period of limitation for the purpose of Article 136 of the Act. Indisputably, the E.P. has been filed on 04.03.2004 and whereas the date of decree is 20.07.1988. The E.P. levied for execution of the decree dated 20.07.1988 is beyond 12 years. Therefore, the E.P. has become unexecutable because of lapse of period of limitation. The executing Court considered this aspect in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the E.P. on the ground that the decree has become unenforceable, because of lapse of 12 years from the date of passing of the decree. The order passed by the executing Court, in my considered view, is just and proper and there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Dated:29th March, 2010. Cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5805 of 2006 Date:29th March, 2010.