IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1342 of 2007 Ashok Singh, Son of Late Gopal Singh, R/o –Tilhapar, Tole Shakarpur, P.S.-Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad. ---------------------------Judgment debtor-objector-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Chandra Yadav, Son of Late Dukhi Yadav. ------------------------ Applicant/Decree holder.Opp.Party. 2. Ram Pati Devi. 3. Sonapati Devi. 4. Rukhi Devi. Wife of Late Dukhi Yadav. All 1 to 4 are resident of village- Tilhapar, Tole Shakarpur, P.S.- Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad.—Decree holder-Opp.Parties. 5.Smt. Sumitra Devi, Wife of late Awadhesh Singh. 6.Rakesh Kumar. 7.Mukesh Kumar. 8.Yugesh Kumar. 9.Amlesh Kumar. 10.Nilesh Kumar. All Sons of late Awadhesh Singh. 11.Manju Devi, Wife of late Awadhesh Singh. 12.Shakti Kumar Singh. 13.Mritunjay Kumar Singh. 14.Hemant Kumar Singh. Sons of Late Gopal Singh. 15.Meshraj Singh. 16.Arvind Singh Sons of late Mahabir Singh. 2 All 5 to 16 are resident of village- Tilhapar, Tole Shakarpur, P.S.-Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad. —--------------Judgment debtor-Objector-Opp.Parties. ----------- 5. 10.08.2011 This civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2007 passed by Civil Judge, Aurangabad in Execution Case No. 03 of 2000, rejecting the objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the execution application. There is no dispute that the Title Suit No. 05/65/06/69 was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with regard to the suit land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and the suit has been decreed by judgment and decree dated 18.12.1969. The Title Appeal No.07/70/04/97 had been filed against the said judgment and decree but the same was also dismissed on 19.01.1998. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed Execution Case No.03/2000 for execution of the decree dated 18.12.1969 as aforesaid. In this execution case the judgment debtor has filed the petition dated 22.01.2007 raising the objection that the execution case is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after nearly 30 years of the date of the decree. 3 After hearing the parties, the learned court below by the impugned order has held that the execution case was not barred by limitation as the same has been filed within 12 years from the date when the decree has become enforceable. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Executing Court below has wrongly passed the impugned order and has wrongly held that the execution case was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. From the facts appearing in the revision petition as well as the impugned order it is clear that the decree was passed on 18.12.1969 but the appeal against the said decree came to be dismissed on 19.01.1998. Under Article 136 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for execution of any decree has been prescribed to be 12 years for which the starting point is the day when the decree or order becomes enforceable. In Suba Rai Vs. Bindeshwar Rai & Ors., 2007 (4)PLJR 615, the scope of Article 136 of the Limitation Act has been considered and it has been held that ―the decree of the trial court will become enforceable after the dismissal of the appeal which was filed against it and which had kept the 4 matter sub judice‖. In this view of the matter, the learned court below has correctly held that the Execution Case No. 03 of 2000 was not barred by limitation. There does not appear to be any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)