RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS. versus RAM UDAI RAI AND ORS.

RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS. versus RAM UDAI RAI AND ORS.

The application for execution filed on 5.4.1991 was time-barred as it was filed after the prescribed period of twelve years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, which begins from the date the decree becomes enforceable; neither the dismissal of civil revision nor quantification of costs delays the commencement of limitation.

Parties
Appellants: Ram Bachan Rai and Others; Respondents: Ram Udai Rai and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Patna High Court Order Rejecting Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Limitation Period, Time Barred Execution, Article 136 Limitation Act
Civil Procedure Limitation Execution of Decree Limitation Period Time Barred Execution Article 136 Limitation Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Bachan Rai and Others

Appellants

Ram Udai Rai and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Patna High Court Order Rejecting Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the limitation period for execution of a decree begin under Article 136 of the Limitation Act?
  2. 2 Is the application for execution filed after 12 years from the date of decree time-barred?

Ratio Decidendi

The application for execution filed on 5.4.1991 was time-barred as it was filed after the prescribed period of twelve years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, which begins from the date the decree becomes enforceable; neither the dismissal of civil revision nor quantification of costs delays the commencement of limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Patna High Court and Executing Court set aside
  • Application for execution stands rejected