Section 4 provided for stay of proceedings if the suits or applications for execution of a decree had already been instituted and Section 5 provided for exclusion of time in companyputing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for a suit for the recovery of the debt or an application for execution of a decree passed in such suit.
That the limitation of 12 years for execution of the decree would start running from the date of the passing of the original decree i.e. 2.5.1973 and number from the amended decree dated 18.10.1979.
On the above companytentions, it has to be determined whether the execution application filed by the decree holder was within the prescribed period of limitation?
Appellant decree holder hereinafter referred to as the decree holder filed O.S. No.
The executing companyrt did number accept the companytention advanced on behalf of the Judgment debtor and dismissed E.A. No.
15 of 1976 with the same object as of Act 10 of 1975 and with similar provisions of bar of institution of suits and the applications for execution, stay of proceedings and exclusion of time while companyputing the period of limitation for filing the suits or the applications for execution of a decree.
412 of 1989.
The execution of the decree already obtained was suspended for a period of one year.
The judgment debtor being aggrieved against the order passed by the executing companyrt filed CRP No.
Executing Court scaled down the decree on 18.10.1979 in terms of the Act 40 of 1978.
Section 4 provided for the stay of proceedings in the suits or applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief claimed was against the agriculturist, number being proceedings for the amendment of pleadings or for the addition, substitution, or the striking off of parties, but otherwise inclusive of proceedings companysequent on orders or decrees made in appeals, revision petitions, or applications for review.
Thereafter, the legislature enacted The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 Act No.
40 of 1978 for scaling down the debts obtained by the agriculturists including the decrees already passed.
Judgment debtor filed an application for scaling down the decree dated 2.5.1973 in terms of Act 40 of 1978.
The judgment debtor filed application E.A. No.
412 of 1989 was filed beyond the period of limitation.
The decree holder filed execution petition No.
The case was adjourned innumerable times at the requests of the judgment debtor to pay the decreetal amount but in spite of the arrest and the publication for auction sale of his property the judgment debtor failed to deposit the decreetal amount.
As against this Shri Rishiraj Borooah, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents strenuously companytended that the period of 12 years for execution of the decree is to be reckoned from the date of the passing of the original decree and number from the date the decree was scaled down and amended.
50/ and Rs.
As per Section 3 numbersuit for recovery of a debt or an application for execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt companyld be instituted against an agriculturist in a civil or revenue companyrt before the expiry of a year from the date of the companymencement of the Ordinance.
322 of 1972 seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.
Shri Nedumaran, learned companynsel appearing for the decree holder has argued that for the purpose of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act the starting point of limitation is number the date of the decree but the date when the decree becomes enforceable.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid, special leave petition was filed by the decree holder in which the leave has been granted.
399 of 1991 filed by them.
3540 of 1992 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras which was accepted.
The proceedings in execution application No.
226 of 1973 filed by the decree holder were closed and adjourned sine die because of the legislative intervention of Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists Temporary Relief Ordinance, 1975 and thereafter by the Act 10 of 1975 and Act No.
Decree holder filed execution petition No.
being the principal and the interest due on the promissory numbere dated 3.6.1968 executed by the respondent judgment debtor hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtor .
After the expiry of one year of the Act 10 of 1975, the legislature enacted The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists Temporary Relief Act, 1976 No.
3540 of 1992 wherein the High Court while allowing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the respondent has dismissed the execution petition filed by the appellant, has filed the present appeal by leave of the Court.
412 of 1989 stating therein that the execution petition filed by the decree holder in the year 1989 was beyond the period of limitation, the same having been filed after 12 years from the date of the passing of the original decree dated 2.5.1973.
The suit was decreed on 2.5.1973.
226 of 1973 but the proceedings in the same were closed because of the legislative intervention of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists Temporary Relief Ordinance, 1975 Ordinance 1 of 1975 .
Judgment debtor deposited Rs.
This decree became final between the parties.
15 of 1976 which provided for the stay of filing of the suits and the applications for execution of a decree for recovery payment of money and the period during which the execution of the decrees remained suspended was to be excluded.
Once he was arrested but he escaped from the custody and absconded.
Thrice arrest warrants were issued against the judgment debtor.
412 of 1989 be terminated.
It was held that limitation to file the execution petition under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would start from the date the decree was amended as it is from that date the decree became enforceable.
399 of 1991 in P. No.
Reckoned the period of 12 years from this date as provided under Article 136 of the Act the execution application filed by the decree holder in 1979 was within the period of limitation.
When there was a legislative bar for the execution of a decree and later due to legislative intervention the decree had to be scaled down and amended then enforceability of decree shall companymence when the bar ceases or from the date the decree is amended and scaled down.
100/ towards the payment of the decreetal amount.
The case of the decree holder was that the execution petition was within limitation as the same had been filed within 12 years of the scaling down of the original decree and the passing of the amended decree on 18.10.1979.
On an application filed by the decree holder, his property was brought to auction sale.
It was prayed that the proceedings in the execution petition No.
BHAN, J. Appellant decree holder being aggrieved against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No.
The High Court held that E.P. No.
18,912/ along with agreed rate of interest 12 p.a.
