Rani Maity v. State Rep By Collector, Purba Medinipur

09.06.2022 (D/L-11) Ct.-18 (Susanta) C.O. 1087 of 2018 Rani Maity -Vs- State, represented by the Collector, Purba Medinipur Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, .... For the Petitioner.

None appears on behalf of the opposite party in spite of service.

Petitioner is the decree-holder of the decree of permanent of injunction passed in Title Suit No. 159 of 1963 affirmed in Title Appeal No. 413 of 1964.

The petitioner put the said decree of permanent injunction into execution under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure giving rise to connected Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2016 before the 1st Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Contai, District Purba Medinipur.

The Executing Court by the order impugned being Order no. 13 dated March 27, 2018 has dismissed the execution case holding that since it has been filed beyond the period of 12 years from the date of appellate decree it is barred by limitation.

The limitation for putting a decree of permanent injunction into execution is governed

by Article 136 of the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads as follows:- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

136. For the execution of any twelve years 10[When] the decree or order decree (other than a decree granting becomes enforceable or where the a mandatory injunction) or order of decree or any subsequent order any civil court. directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place:

provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.

In view of the proviso to the third column of the said Article quoted above, the Executing Court has clearly fell in error in holding that the said execution case is barred by limitation.

The order impugned is, therefore, set aside.

The Title Execution Case no. 1 of 2016 is restored to its original file and number.

The Executing Court is directed to expedite the disposal of it.

C.O. 1087 of 2018 is thus allowed with the above terms without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Biswajit Basu, J.)