Soumen Sen, J. - (1.) This is an application for execution of a foreign decree dated 12th March 1988. The judgment-debtors have questioned the maintainability of this application on the ground that this application was filed on 19th July 2011, after lapse of a period of 12 years from the date of the decree. It is submitted that a prior execution application filed by the decree-holders on 19th December 2006 was disposed of by an order dated 17th March 2009 and if any application was further required to be filed for execution of the said decree, then such application is required to be filed within the period of 12 years from the date of the decree and not thereafter. It is submitted that the attempt to file an application for execution of the foreign decree dated 12th March 1998 having expired in March 2010, the second application filed on 19th July 2011 is ex facie barred by limitation.
(2.) Mr. S. N. Mitra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtors have referred to a Single Bench decision of our Court in Biswapati Dey vs. Kennsington Stores & Ors., 1972 AIR(Cal) 172 Paragraph 14, two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation vs. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd., 1999 8 SCC 315 paragraph 13 and in Hameed Joharan (Dead) & Ors. vs. Abdul Salam (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., 2001 7 SCC 573 paragraphs 9 and 10 to submit that the 12 years period for the purpose of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act has to be computed from the date of the decree as in the instant case the decree became enforceable the moment the money decree was passed and it is not dependent upon the volition of the party to apply for execution beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Mitra submits that the second application, to be held maintainable, ought to have been filed within the period of 12 years from 12th March 1998. Mr. Mitra submits that successive applications could be filed for execution of a decree provided all such subsequent and/or successive applications are filed within the period of 12 years. Mr. Mitra has referred to a passage from B. B. Mitra's The Limitation Act, 1963, twenty-second Edition at page 1652 and a decision of the Patna High Court in Ram Gobind Rai vs. Shahabad District Board through the Special Officer, Arrah., 1976 AIR(Pat) 118, a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in N.S. Karuppanna Gounder vs. Nagammal, wife of Subramanian, 1996 2 MadLJ 470, a Division Bench judgment of our Court in UCO Bank. vs. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd., 2000 3 CalLT 492 paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar s/o Shankar Nale & Ors. vs. Jaipalsing s/o Shivlalsing Rajput & Ors., 2008 1 SCC 520 paragraph 7.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned senior counsel representing the decree-holders submits that this application is essentially for implementation of an order passed by a coordinate Bench on 17th March 2009 by which receiver was appointed over the remaining assets in Annexure-O and Annexure-P in terms of prayer (a) of column 10 of the tabular statement and the said order could not be carried out in view of an appeal preferred by the judgmentdebtors which was pending before the Division Bench till 4th March 2011. It was only after the appeal was dismissed on merits that the instant application has been filed for implementation of the order dated 17th March 2009.;