IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1842 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:20.11.2009 Market Committee, Safidon ....Petitioner versus B.M. Gupta and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. In the application filed for execution through attachment of property for sums purporting to be the balance of amount due through an award in a land acquisition case, the objection was filed by the judgment debtor stating that the petition was barred by limitation. The Executing Court rejected the contention taken by the judgment debtor on the ground that in an earlier application when it was filed, the decree holder had been granted liberty to file a fresh execution petition for recovery of balance of amount. This liberty granted to the decree holder was taken by the Executing Court as sufficient to save the execution petition from the bar of limitation. Civil Revision No.1842 of 2007 (O&M) - 2 - 2. To a suit for recovery of money which would include the amount determined as compensation payable, the limitation for execution of a decree is 12 years from the date when the decree is passed and when it becomes executable. In a case where appeals were pending the date of disposal of the appeal would become relevant and in this case, the regular second appeal before the High Court is reported to have been disposed of on 15.03.1984. Therefore, as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for execution of the decree which is 12 years shall fall on or before 15.03.1996. This period is unexceptional and there could be no contract between the parties nor there could an order of Court extending the period of limitation. The liberty granted to the decree holder to realize the amount which is the balance of amount payable must be understood as a liberty to be exercised within a period of limitation. The Court does not have any jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation which the statute prescribes. The execution petition was barred by limitation on the face of it and it was liable for limine rejection. 3. The order passed by the Executing Court is set aside and the execution petition is liable for rejection as barred by limitation. 4. The Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) 20.11.2009 JUDGE sanjeev