SETHI - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) SUIT for specific performance of contract filed by the respondent was decreed on 22/02/1973. The decree-sheet was amended vide order dated 5-5-1973. The appeal filed by the appellants-Judgment-Debtors was dismissed in default on 15-9-1979 which was restored and finally dismissed on merits by the District Judge, Gurgaon on 11-3-1981 subject to the condition that in case the judgment-debtors make the payment of Rs. 15,500.00 to the decree-holder, plaintiffs' suit shall stand dismissed and appeal accepted. The first instalment was to be deposited on or before 15-4-1981 and second on or before 15-5-1981. The judgment-debtors failed to abide by the terms of the said decree. The decree-holder was, therefore, entitled to get the decree executed in lieu of Rs. 25,000.00 out of which he was stated to have already deposited a sum of Rs. 10,218.00 as earnest money at the time of the agreement and had deposited the balance amount on 12-1-1982. The amount was deposited in favour of the mortgagee with the result that the land was redeemed. Thereafter the decree-holder filed execution applications on 17-12-1982, 12-6-1984 and 21-9-1992 which were dismissed. However, the decree-holder got the sale deed executed and registered in his favour through the process of execution of the decree from the executing Court. As despite the mutation of ownership sanctioned in favour of decree-holder, the judgment-debtors did not deliver the possession of the land in question, he filed an application for execution in April, 1994 which was dismissed by the executing Court on 24/09/1998 holding that the same was barred by limitation. Not satisfied with the order of the executing Court, the decree-holder filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal. The High Court has held that the execution application has been filed within time. Directions have been issued to the executing Court for taking further steps in the execution of the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder. The judgment of the High Court has been assailed in this appeal on the ground that as the execution application was filed after 12 years from the date of the decree, the same was barred by time, and revisional Court was not justified in allowing the revision petition by setting aside the order of the executing Court.
(3.) ARTICLE 136 of the Limitation Act is a specific article prescribing and dealing with the applications for the execution of decrees and orders. In Govind Prasad v. Pawankumar the Privy Council held that successive applications for execution are permitted to be filed but only within the priod of limitation provided by law. ARTICLE 136 provides: JUDGEMENT_35_SCALE3_2000Html1.htm A perusal of the article shows that the period of limitation prescribed by it starts to run from the date when the decree becomes enforceable provided the case does not fall within the scope of the latter part of the provision in the third column. Generally a decree or order becomes enforceable from its date, but in appropriate cases the Court passing the decree may prescribe time wherefrom the decree becomes enforceable on a future date. It must, however, be remembered that the purposes of execution proceeding is to enable the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of his decree. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assist the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the other preventing him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpretation which assists the decree-holder should be accepted. The execution of the decree should not be made futile on mere technicalities which does not, however, mean that where a decree is incapable of being executed under any provision of law it should, in all cases, be executed notwithstanding such bar or prohibition. A rational approach is necessitated keeping in view the prologned factum of litigation resulting in the passing of a decree in favour of a litigant. The policy of law is to give a fair and liberal and not a technical construction enabling the decree-holder to reap the fruits of his decree. It has been held in Akshoy Kumari Debi v. Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee, AIR 1950 Cal 493; Annapurnamma v. Venkamma, (AIR 1938 Mad 323) and Mst. Parmeshri v. Mst. Atti, AIR 1958 Punjab 79, that "It is the policy of law that Article 182 (now Article 136) should receive a fair and liberal and not a technical construction so as to enable the decree-holder to reap the fruits of his decree. It will not be in consonance with the principles of just interpretation, to strain the language of Article 182 in favour of a judgment-debtor who has not paid his just debt.";