Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal referred to three-judge bench.

Ram Bachan Raj and Ors. v. Ram Udar Rai and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 2000
Neutral Citation:(2006) 1 SCC 455

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Arijit Pasayat
  • Tarun Chatterjee
Judgment Date
2006-01-18
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal referred to three-judge bench.
Final Disposition
Appeal referred to three-judge bench.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ram Bachan Raj and Ors.

Respondents

  • Ram Udar Rai and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Chandra Shekhar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. B. Sanyal
  • • Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
  • • Sudhanshu Saran
  • • Abhishek

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ram Bachan Raj and others challenge a Patna High Court order dismissing their civil revision in execution proceedings under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Subordinate Judge, Patna, had held that the period of limitation for filing an execution petition runs from the date when the decree becomes enforceable (i.e., when it is signed), contrary to the appellants’ claim that limitation should commence from the decree’s date. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision, upholding the trial court’s view. The appellants rely on decisions that interpret “enforce” in a broad sense to anchor the limitation period to the decree date, while the respondents cite Shankar Balant Lokhande and related precedents advocating a different calculation, leading to multiple conflicting two-judge bench decisions. The Supreme Court notes this conflict and refers the matter to a three-judge bench, intending to consider listing it with Chiranji Lal’s case (2005] 2 SCC 261). The Court observes that conflicting judgments require authoritative clarification, and directs a three-judge examination to harmonize the principles governing Article 136 and the start of limitation for execution petitions, with possible placement before the Chief Justice for appropriate listing with related cases.

Provisions of Law Cited

Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 136

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Enforceability of a decree should be read in literal sense and as per the intention of the legislators (per Hameed Joharan)
  • There exists conflict among two-judge bench decisions requiring reference to a three-judge bench to settle the law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that Article 136 of the Limitation Act should be read so as to start the period for filing an execution petition from the decree date, i.e., when the decree becomes enforceable. They relied on Hameed Joharan (Dead) v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by LRs and Ors. and other decisions suggesting the literal meaning of enforceability and urging that the 12-year period be reckoned from the date of the decree. They highlighted conflicts among two-judge bench decisions and urged reference to a three-judge bench to resolve the issue and list the matter with Chiranji Lal’s case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged that the correct principle is as per Shankar Balant Lokhande (and related cases) and that there is a conflict among two-judge benches. They argued that the period should be counted from the date the decree becomes enforceable (often the signing date) and supported the view that necessitates reference to a three-judge bench for authoritative guidance and appropriate listing with Chiranji Lal’s case.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Chiranji Lal (dead) by lrs. v. Hari Das (dead) by lrs.[2005] 2 SCC 261Mentioned OnlyReferenced as a related matter to be listed with Chiranji Lal’s case; no substantive ruling in this judgment.
WB Essential Commodities Supply Corpn. v. Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.[1999] 8 SCC 315Mentioned OnlyCited to illustrate existing conflict among two-judge bench decisions; not treated as controlling in this decision.
Hameed Joharan (Dead) v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by lrs. and Ors.[2001] 7 SCC 573PositiveCited by appellants to support literal interpretation of ‘enforce’ and the start date of the limitation period.
Shankar Balant Lokhande (Dead) by lrs. v. Chandrakunt S. Lokhande & Anr.[1995] 3 SCC 413Mentioned OnlyCited in the context of a challenged principle; the judgment acknowledges the case but does not settle the issue here.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ram Bachan Raj and Ors. v. Ram Udar Rai and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

", RAM BACHAN RAJ AND ORS. ~ ' ' _v._ RAM UDAR RA! AND ORS. JANUARY 18, 2006 .... y [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] _Limitaion Act, 1963:_ B _Article 136-limitationfor execution of decree-Held, reference having already been made to a three Judge Bench in_ ehiranji Lal's _case; the malter_ c _may also be placed along with that case._ ~ On the question whether the period of limitation for filing the petition for execution of decree starts running from the date of decree or when the decree becomes enforceable, i.e. when it is signed, D \&._\ Refefring the matter to a three Judge Bench, the Court HELD. There is some area of conflict amongst several two-Judge Bench decisions of the Court. Noticing the conflict, reference has been made to a three-Judge Bench in _Chiranji Lat's_ case*. This case may be E placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders as regards listing it along with _Chiranji la/'s_ case. _*Chiranji Lal (dead) by lrs._ v. _Hari Das (dead) by lrs._ 120051 2 SCC 261; _W B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn._ v. _Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. ltd. and Anr.,_ (19991 8 sec 315; _Hameed Joharan (dead)_ F _and Ors._ '" _Abdul Salam (dead) by lrs. and Ors.,_ [20011 7 SCC 573 and _Shankar Ba/ant lokhande (dead) by lrs._ v. _Chandrakant_ S. _lokhande & Anr.,_ 1199513 sec 413, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1100 of2000. G _I_ -i I From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.95 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. _TJ.9194._ S. Chandra Shekhar for the Appellants. H 455 456 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) I S.C.R. A S.B. Sanyal, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sudhanshu Saran and Abhishek for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J.** The High Court of Patna dismissed the Civil **B** Revision filed by the appellant summarily. Challenge in the Civil Revision was to the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, VII, Patna, in execution proceedings. By the said order Subordinate Judge held that the plea raised by the appellant about the execution petition being barred by time in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation C Act') was untenable. Learned Subordinate Judge held that the period of limitation starts running not from the date of decree, but when the decree becomes enforceable i.e. when it is signed. **D** In support of the appeal strong reliance was placed on several decisions of this Court i.e. _W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corpn._ v. _Swadesh Agro Farming & Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.,_ (1999] 8 SCC 315 _Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Ors._ v. _Abdul Salam (Dead) by lrs. and Ors.,_ (200 I] 7 sec 573. E In _Hameed Joharan 's_ case (supra) it was held after referring to the meaning to the word 'enforce' from various dictionaries words 'when the decree or order becomes enforceable' should be read in literal sense and as per intention of the legislators 12 years period is to be reckoned from the date the decree became enforceable i.e. the date of the decree or order . . **F** _Per contra,_ learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the correct position of law is expressed in _Shankar Ba/ant lokhande (Dead) by lRs._ v. _Chandrakunt S. Lokhande & Anr,_ [1995] 3 SCC 413 and in other two cases the correct principles in law were not kept in view. We find that there is some area of conflict amongst several two-judge Bench decisions. It is also to be noticed that noticing the conflict between these judgments, reference has G been made to a three-Judge Bench in _Chiranji Lal (dead) by lrs._ v. _Hari Das (dead) by Lrs .._ f2005] 2 SCC 261. _f_ This case may also be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to be placed alongwith _Chiranji Lal 's_ case (supra). **H** R.P. Appeal referred to three Judge bench.