RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS. versus RAM UDAR RAI AND ORS.

RAM BACHAN RAI AND ORS. versus RAM UDAR RAI AND ORS.

There is conflict among two-Judge Bench decisions regarding when the limitation for execution of a decree starts; due to the existing reference to a three-Judge Bench in Chiranji Lal’s case, this case is also referred for consideration with that matter.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Bachan Raj; Respondent: Ram Udar Rai; Respondent: Akhilesh Kumar Pandey; Respondent: Sudhanshu Saran; Respondent: Abhishek
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Referred to Three Judge Bench
Outcome
Appeal referred to three-Judge Bench
Legal Topics
Limitation for Execution of Decree, Interpretation of Article 136 of Limitation Act
Civil Procedure Limitation for Execution of Decree Interpretation of Article 136 of 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Bachan Raj

Appellant

Ram Udar Rai

Respondent

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

Respondent

Sudhanshu Saran

Respondent

Abhishek

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Referred to Three Judge Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the period of limitation for filing the execution petition start: from the date of decree or when the decree becomes enforceable (i.e., when it is signed)?

Ratio Decidendi

There is conflict among two-Judge Bench decisions regarding when the limitation for execution of a decree starts; due to the existing reference to a three-Judge Bench in Chiranji Lal’s case, this case is also referred for consideration with that matter.

Court Disposition

Appeal referred to three-Judge Bench

Orders

  • Case to be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for orders regarding listing with Chiranji Lal’s case