A party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity. (HUDA & Anr. Vs Dr.Babeswar Kanhar & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 401 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 685 (S.C.)

A suit which is hit by law of limitation does not require to be decided on merits. (Amar Kaur Vs Paramjit Kaur) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 645 (P&H) 

Suit filed on the last day of limitation, after Court hours, at the residence of Presiding Officer at 9.00 p.m. – Circular issued by High Court that Judicial Officers can entertain the suit even on a Court holiday or beyond the office hours at their residence – Held, suit is filed within limitation. (Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.4.R.1). (Jaspal Singh & Anr. Vs Balbir Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 588 (P&H)

Starting point – Date of commission of offence has to be taken into consideration while deciding the period of limitation. (O.R.Alavi Vs Government of A.P. through P.P) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 415 (A.P.)

Limitation – Plea cannot be allowed to defend justifiable cause. (State of Punjab Vs Surjit Kaur) AIR 2002 P&H 68

Condonation of delay – Leave to appeal – Delay of 57 days – Sufficient cause – Should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay – Order of High Court refusing to condone delay by holding that merely because AAG did not file appeal inspite of instructions did not constitute sufficient cause set aside – Delay of 57 days condoned. (State of Nagaland Vs Lipok AO & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 422 (S.C.)

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings. (Francis Vs John Britto) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 411 (Kerala)

Delay – Condonation – Affidavits of Revenue Officer and counsel regarding confusion of date of hearing in First appeal – Belated knowledge of correct situation –  Rejected by High Court – Held, High Court ought to have taken a liberal and not a rigid and too technical view of the issue of sufficient cause to condone delay in filing of second appeal – Delay of 39 days condoned. (Municipal Corporation, Gwalior Vs Ramcharan (D) by LRs. & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 277 (S.C.)

Delay – Condonation – Appellant bonafide prosecuting revision which was held to be not maintainable – Appeal filed within one week of dismissal of revision – Delay condoned. (Smt.Mohan Devi @ Mohini Devi Vs Lrs. of Himmat Lal Menaria) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 431 (Rajasthan)

Delay – Condonation – Correctness of the decree is not a matter to be gone into at the stage of considering the petition to condone the delay. (Ramachandran Potti Vs Thankam) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 534 (Kerala)

Delay – Condonation – In absence of proper application to condone delay Court has no jurisdiction to condone delay. (Ballumal A.Jaisingh Vs M/s J.J.Builders) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 656 (Bombay) 

Delay – Condonation – Length of delay is no matter – Acceptability of explanation is only criterion – Explanation not smacking of dilatory strategy – In every case of delay there is some lapse on part of litigant – That alone, not sufficient to refuse to condone delay. (Trilok Chand Saini Vs The State & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 487 (Rajasthan)

Delay – Condonation – No express order – Even then it can be presumed that delay was condoned if in the facts and circumstances leading to the order gives an indication that the Court had applied its mind to the application for the condonation of delay and was convinced that the delay had been convincingly explained. (Bongaigaon Stores & Anr. Vs Moolchand Kucheria & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 369 (Gauhati)

Delay – Condonation – Revision against acquittal – Delay of 296 days due to Departmental delay in dealing with the case – No ground to condone delay. (District Manager, Markfed Vs Anokh Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 138 (P&H) 

Delay – Condonation – Sufficient cause – Principles governing are: (i) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; (ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated – As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties; (iii) “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made – The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner; (iv) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay; (v) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides – A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay – In fact, he runs a serious risk; (vi) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (Grid Co. Ltd. of Orissa Vs N.T.P.C.Ltd. ) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 106 (Orissa)

Delay – Condonation – Whenever an application for condonation of delay is filed it is to be decided first and if delay is not condoned then application/appeal/revision cannot be entertained. (Bongaigaon Stores & Anr. Vs Moolchand Kucheria & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 369 (Gauhati)

Delay – Writ petition – Dismissed in view of compromise memo – Compromise memo not signed by appellants – Even the signatures of the counsel of appellants is not there – Held, as writ petition was disposed of in an indefensible manner as such delay condoned and matter remanded to High Court for disposal on merits. (K.Venkatachala Bhat & Anr. Vs Krishna Nayak (D) by Lrs. & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 692 (S.C.)

Minor – Limitation – Challenge to decree – Minor can challenge the same within three years of his becoming major – If he dies during three years of his attaining majority his L.R’s will enter into his shoes and will be entitled to file suit within the remaining period of three years which was available to the deceased – They will not get fresh limitation of 12 years or even three years unless it is shown that decree was the result of fraud not within the knowledge of the deceased or his representatives. (Rajni Vs Roshni & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 594 (P&H)

Compromise recorded on 12.4.1960 and no execution proceedings initiated till 11.4.1964 – New Act came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1964 – Execution under the new Act not maintainable – Limitation Act is not retrospective. (Avinash Chander & Anr. Vs Hazura Singh) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 439 (P&H)  

Mortgage – Redemption – Limitation – Time that began to run against father cannot be applied to sons at time when they were not even born. (State of Punjab Vs Surjit Kaur) AIR 2002 P&H 68

Seeking benefit of S.12(2) – No application is required to be filed seeking benefit of the provision – It is statutory obligation of the Court to extend the benefit where available. (M/s India House Vs Kishan N.Lalwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 139 (S.C.)

Time spent in obtaining copy – Copy not required to be filed alongwith appeal – Held, time requisite for obtaining copy of impugned decree, sentence or order is liable to be excluded from computing period of limitation although such copy may not necessarily be required to be filed alongwith appeal, application or memo of representation or review. (M/s India House Vs Kishan N.Lalwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 139 (S.C.)

Time spent in obtaining copy – Date of application and date of delivery of copy, both are to be excluded i.e. period of limitation is to be found out and then add to the time requisite for obtaining the copy – the date of application for copy and the date of delivery, thereof both included and treat the result of addition as the period of limitation. (M/s India House Vs Kishan N.Lalwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 139 (S.C.)

Time spent in obtaining copy – Has to be excluded without regard to the fact whether the copy was applied for before the expiry of period of limitation or not. (M/s India House Vs Kishan N.Lalwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 139 (S.C.)

Genuine dispute arising between the parties in respect of part of claim amount in a winding up petition – Petitioner having pursued the winding up petition diligently and bona fide, time taken in winding up proceedings excluded while directing the petitioner to pursue civil remedy available in law. (Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. Vs Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 255 (Bombay)

Complaint filed in Consumer Forum – Finding of State Commission that dispute is not governed by Consumer Protection Act and liberty given to approach civil Court – Held, Consumer Forum is very much a Court of civil jurisdiction and the proceedings before the Consumer Forum are civil proceedings – Period spent in litigation in consumer forum to be excluded. (The City Municipal Corporation, Kolar Vs S.A.Lateef & Company, V.Kota, Andhra Pradesh) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 98 (Karnataka)

Court allowed plaintiff to file a fresh suit within a specified date – Even if there is delay in filing suit, plaintiff is entitled to benefit of S.14 of Limitation Act. (Iqbal Singh (died) by L.R. Vs  A.Sudhakara Rao & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 268 (A.P.)

In order to attract the provision three conditions are to be satisfied viz. (1) the petitioner has been prosecuting the other civil proceeding with due diligence, (2) the earlier proceeding and the subsequent proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and (3) earlier proceeding must have been prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature was unable to entertain it.  (Mac-N-Hom Systems Vs P.S.Varrier) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 320 (Kerala)

Proceedings instituted in Superior Court – Plaint returned to be presented to lower court – It is not a case of want of jurisdiction – Position is different when a suit which ought to be filed in a superior court is instituted in the lower court. (J.Venkatramana Reddy Vs Kanakagari Bhakthavatsalaiah) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 139 (A.P.) 

Proceedings pending in wrong Court – Period from date of return of plaint by wrong Court till date of presentation to the proper Court not to be excluded – Court which returned the plaint has no power to grant time – Even if wrong Court grants time for representation of the plaint before a proper Court, it will not save the period of limitation. (J.Venkatramana Reddy Vs Kanakagari Bhakthavatsalaiah) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 139 (A.P.) 

Proceedings pending in wrong Court – Period from which proceedings was pending from the date of its presentation till the date of return to be excluded from the total period  for  the  purpose  of  computation of  limitation. (J.Venkatramana Reddy Vs Kanakagari Bhakthavatsalaiah) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 139 (A.P.) 

Suit filed in wrong Court owing to own negligence or default – S.14 is not attracted – Even if there is wrong legal advice and party acted by that advice, that itself is not a ground to get the benefit of S.14 Limitation Act. (Mac-N-Hom Systems Vs P.S.Varrier) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 320 (Kerala)

Defects of not only jurisdiction but also cases where earlier proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature are covered within the purview of the provision. (Union of India & Ors. Vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 250 (S.C.)

Writ petition – Dismissed and it was left open to seek remedy in a civil suit – Held, period lost during pendency of writ proceedings is liable to be excluded from computing the period of limitation u/s 14(2) of Limitation Act. (Union of India & Ors. Vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 250 (S.C.)

Suit against dispossession – Provisions of S.14 Limitation Act applies to suit filed u/s 6 Specific Relief Act. (Pratapsing Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Maruti Raghunath Todkar) AIR 2003 Bombay 11

Stay order obtained as to execution of decree – Period for which there was stay order is to be excluded irrespective of which party obtained the stay order. (Dilipkumar Vs Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Ltd.) AIR 2004 Bombay 117

Permission of Court to file suit before expiry of 60 days after issue of notice u/s 80 CPC – Tantamounts to permission to dispense with such notice and at the same time add the notice period of 60 days for getting the limitation period extended. (Union of India Vs Kerala State Small I.D. & E.Corporation Ltd.) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 345 (Kerala) 

Acknowledgment – Bank loan – Amount of loan not mentioned in the renewal form – Signatures on renewal form admitted – Held, renewal form is a valid acknowledgment. (Central Bank of India Vs Prakash Digambar Adhao & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 579 (Bombay)

Acknowledgment – Extension of period of limitation – It need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication – However, it must relate to a present subsisting liability, though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words – Words used in acknowledgment must indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor – Intention to attempt such jural relationship must be apparent –  Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be expressed in words – Acknowledgment cannot be inferred where there is no admission so as to fasten liability on the maker of the statement by an involved or far-fetched process of reasoning. (Food Corporation of India Vs Assam State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Ltd. & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 510 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 521 (S.C.)

Acknowledgment – In a subsequent transaction – Amounts to acknowledgement provided recital is clear about the intention to admit the jural relationship. (Sangat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 259 (P&H)

Acknowledgment – In the typed letter no reference to the amount due except on one corner it is written in pen “present outstanding Rs.9551.91 – This writing written subsequently and was not part of original letter – Defendant denied such writing in his handwriting – Plaintiff not leading any evidence to prove that the writing is in the hands of any of the defendant – Such writing not initialled by any person – No evidence that these words of acknowledgment were written in the hands of the defendant – The document does not contain an acknowledgement of liability on behalf of defendant. (State Bank of India Vs. M/s.H.Satish Hosiery Factory, Modhopuri & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 553 (P&H)

Acknowledgment – Recital in a document can be treated as acknowledgement if a clear intention is expressed that the money was due under the mortgage and mortgagor had a subsisting right of redemption. (Sangat Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 259 (P&H)

Cheque issued and accepted towards discharge of liability – Subsequent dishonour of cheque serve as a cause of action for suit. (P.Mohan Vs Basavaraju) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 406 (Karnataka) 

Part payment – Extension of limitation – Voucher by which the last payment was deposited not produced – Where no proof such part payment is produced suit filed after expiry of limitation period is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. (Jugraj Sethia Vs M.Ramaiah (Deceased) by LRs. & Anr.) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 468 (Karnataka) 468 

Suit against one legal heir – Subsequently having come to know of last testament of deceased, other defendants also brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased – Their non inclusion earlier a bona fide mistake – Suit not barred by limitation against other defendants subsequently impleaded. (Murali Mohan Naidu & Ors. Vs Iskala Nadi Ramanna & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 133 (A.P.)

Suit for redemption – Limitation – Period under Limitation Act, 1963  when shorter than period prescribed under Limitation Act, 1908 then suit instituted within a period of seven years next after the commencement of the 1963 Act is within limitation. (Mehnga Singh & Ors. Vs Gurdial Singh & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 525 (P&H)

Suit for declaration – Limitation – Declaration sought that sale certificate issued by Executing Court is illegal, null and void – Limitation starts to run not from the date of issuance of sale certificate but from the date there was threat to the title of plaintiff. (Gulzar Singh Vs Sulakhan Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 340 (P&H)

Failure to pay instalment of principal amount and interest thereon on due date – Cause of action accrues to plaintiff on date when recall notice is served on defendant – Suit filed within three years from date of service of recall notice – Not barred by limitation. (The H.P. State Industrial Development Corp. Vs Kesri Roller Flour Mills) AIR 2002 H.P. 34

Counter guarantee – Given by party to Bank who gave guarantee to creditor on behalf of principal debtor – Limitation for Bank to file suit against party which gave counter guarantee starts running on date on which Bank liquidated its liability under its Bank guarantee in terms of decree passed against it – Suit filed within three years from that date – Suit is not barred by limitation. (Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited Vs State Bank of India & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 653 (Karnataka)

Arrears of rent – Suit for recovery – Limitation is three years from the date when the arrears become due – Pendency of petition for fixation of fair rent does not preclude the landlord to recover the contractual rent. (Sundaram  Vs Rajeev) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 718 (Kerala)

Suit for specific performance – Limitation – No specific date fixed for execution of sale deed but the same was to be executed within six months of sanctioning of mutation in favour of vendor – Limitation would commence from date of sanction of mutation. (Ranjana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 93 (H.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Time of 3 years fixed from date of agreement – Period of limitation will start to run after 3 years from date of agreement – Question of refusal to perform the contract and plaintiff having notice thereof is not material as time was fixed for performance. (Korada Appalanarsamma Vs Kinthali) AIR 2003 A.P. 294

Agreement to sell – Limitation – Three years – Such period is to be reckoned from the date fixed for performance of the contract and in case no date for such performance is fixed, then from the date the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. (Limitation Act, 1963, Art.54). (Rajana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 127 (H.P.) 

Breach of contract – When the case is not of continuing breach of contract, suit is to be filed within three years of breach of contract. (Atul Industrial Agencies Vs G.D.Gupta & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 143 (Rajasthan)

Breach of contract – Suit for compensation – Limitation – Starting point of limitation is when the contract is broken. (Delta Foundations & Constrictions Vs Kerala State Constructions Corporation Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 297 (Kerala) 

Suit for correction –  Limitation – Plaintiff if is in possession then cause of action arises not when wrong entries were made but on the day when there is a fresh denial of the plaintiff’s rights. (Naraini Devi & Ors. Vs Surinder Kumar & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 680 (P&H)

Suit for title – Wrong mutation entry – Starting point of limitation – Limitation to file suit is three years – Starting point of limitation is not from the day when wrong mutation entry was made but from the day when right to sue first accrues i.e. when real threat to title is apprehended. (Manti & Ors. Vs Sarwati Devi & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 233 (P&H)

Suit for enforcement of mortgage and recovery of mortgage dues filed by mortgagee – Question of limitation does not arise – Right of redemption of mortgage in a suit for foreclosure subsists till final decree debarring mortgagor from all rights to redeem the mortgage property has been passed. (Pranil Kumar Sett Vs Kishorilal Bysack) AIR 2003 Calcutta 1

Suit for redemption of mortgage – Has to be filed within 30 years – Limitation of 30 years is for filing suit and not for payment of money – Right to redeem mortgage is not extinguished merely because the mortgage money is not paid or deposited within 30 years. (Govindan Nair Vs Abraham) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 206 (Kerala) 

Suit for declaration and possession filed in 1955 – Defendant alleged to have taken forcible possession in 1949 – Defendants however claimed to be in possession since 1928 – Courts below found plaintiff to be owner but had lost title as defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession – No evidence that predecessors of defendant ever surrendered possession of house to predecessors of plaintiff at any point of time – Plaintiff’s criminal case alleging defendants to have trespassed into suit house in 1949 ended in acquittal with finding that defendants were already in possession of the house – Suit is clearly barred by limitation. (Tej Narain & Anr. Vs Shanti Swaroop Bohre & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 478 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 565 (S.C.)

Applicability of two provisions – Article 64 is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or discontinuance of possession – Article 65 is a residuary article applying to suits for possession not otherwise provided for – Suit based on plaintiff’s title in which there is no allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone can fall within article 65 –  Question as to which article applies can only be decided by reference to pleadings – Plaintiff cannot invoke article 65 by suppressing material facts. (Ramiah Vs N.Narayana Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 178 (S.C.)

“Nasban” rights in the trees – Trees attached to earth, except `standing timber’ are immovable property – Principles of adverse possession are applicable to the `Nasban’ rights to such trees. (Kulwant Singh Vs Phula Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 156 (P&H)

Adverse possession – Animus possidendi is required to be proved to be successful to claim adverse possession. (Md.Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 473 (S.C.)

Adverse possession – Enjoyment of property as his own for more than 12 years before the date of suit – If true owner does not take any action within the period of limitation then it can be said that person in possession has perfected his title by adverse possession as the three conditions of ‘peaceful’, ‘open’ and ‘continuous’ possession to constitute adverse possession are satisfied. (Devaki Pillai Vs Gouri Amma) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 65 (Kerala)

Adverse possession – Permissible possession under an invalid document – Possession even under document inadmissible in evidence becomes adverse to the true owner especially when the possession is an indicator of ouster of the true owner – However, mere cutting of grass, tethering of cattle or dumping of rubbish is not sufficient to establish adverse possession. (Kulwant Singh Vs Phula Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 156 (P&H)

Adverse possession – Plaintiff claiming title – Alternative plea of adverse possession – Maintainable. (P.Subramania Chettiar Vs Amirtham) AIR 2003 Madras 153

Adverse possession – Strip of land kept joint by ancestors of parties for purpose of passage – No claim of right over disputed land as an easement – Thus suit filed for declaration of joint title over disputed land within 12 years from date of cause of action – Not barred by Limitation. (Brajaraj Mishra Vs Ananda Chandra Mishra) AIR 2002 Orissa 205

Collusive decree – Son had no right to challenge the alienation of property by his father during his life time – Suit filed within three years of the death of father – Held, suit is within time. (Nachhattar Singh & Anr. Vs Jangir Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 353 (P&H)

Suit for possession on the basis of title under encroachment by defendant – No specific pleading by defendant as to on what date he came into possession and what was the nature of his possession – No clear assertion of hostile title by defendant – Plea that suit is barred by limitation, rejected. (Sukhdeo Parashramji Bhugul  Vs Wamanrao Nagorao Charhat) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 333 (Bombay)

Suit governed by Art.65 – In order to succeed plaintiff has to prove his title – It is not necessary for him to prove that he was in possession within 12 years preceding the filing of suit – On the contrary, it is for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff’s claim to establish title by adverse possession. (Md.Mohammadali (Dead) By Lrs. Vs Jagadish Kalita & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 387 (S.C.)

Suit for partition – One of defendants claiming to be adopted son of deceased owner and that entire suit property is bequeathed to him by deceased owner – Property mutated in his name on basis of Will – Held, it is not necessary to file suit within 3 years of date of mutation or of date of written statement claiming title on basis of Will – Period of limitation is 12 years. (Daya Devi Vs Angoori Devi) AIR 2002 Delhi 295

Suit for recovery of property namely jewels deposited by owner with the defendant to be shred by heirs of owner – Art.70 and not Art.69 applies. (T.G.Rajamani Mudaliar Vs T.G.Ekambara Mudaliar) AIR 2002 Madras 185

Auction sale – Setting aside – Petition to be filed within 60 days – S.5 of Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings – Petition filed after 60 days is not maintainable. (Francis Vs John Britto) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 411 (Kerala)

Auction purchaser – Delivery of possession – Limitation of one year – Starts to run when the sale becomes absolute – Sale confirmed during pendency of objections U.O.21.R.90 – Period of one year starts to run not when sale was confirmed but from  the day when objections were finally dismissed. (Indian Bank Vs Deepak Verma & Ors.) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 501 (H.P.) 

Execution – Mandatory decree – Appeal against – Merely filing of an appeal does not amount to stay or mere institution of appeal does not prevent D.H. to execute the decree unless appellate Court puts an embargo the decree is executable  – If the appellate Court stays the execution proceedings then period of stay is to be computed and excluded from the period of limitation for execution of the decree. (Moman Vs Munshi) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 90 (Rajasthan) 

Execution – Limitation – Starts from date of appellate Court decree and not from trial Court decree. (P.T.Xavier Vs Lucy) AIR 2002 Kerala 146

Execution – Limitation – Deductions for period for which proceedings had been stayed – Permissible irrespective of the fact as to who had obtained such stay order from the Court. (Dilipkumar Chimanlal Maniar & Ors. Vs Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 540 (Bombay)

Decree – Execution – Limitation – 12 years – In case of amendment of decree enforceability of decree shall commence from the date the decree is amended. (Akkayanaicker Vs A.A.A.Kotchadainaidu & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Decree – Execution – Limitation – Decree passed in 1973 and execution filed in 1973 – Proceedings closed and adjourned sine die due to Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 came into force and continued till Act No.10 of 1978 came into force and provided for scaling down of debts obtained by Agriculturists – Decree scaled down on 18.10.1979 – It is amended decree which is enforceable – Execution filed on 18.9.1989 is within the period of limitation. (Akkayanaicker Vs A.A.A.Kotchadainaidu & Anr.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 01 (S.C.)

Execution – Third application filed beyond period of limitation – Cannot be said to be in continuation of the previous two application when the first application was dismissed for non prosecution and second application was dismissed for non filing of process fee – Held, third application filed beyond limitation is not maintainable and has been rightly dismissed by Executing Court. (State Bank of India Vs M/s.Day Old Farm & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 815 (P&H)

Execution – Limitation – 12 years – Computation – Period during which D.H. was restrained from executing decree to be excluded – When such suit is dismissed for default and the suit is restored then all interlocutory orders passed therein also revive – The period of pendency of suit till it was finally decided is to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing the execution. (Vareed Jacob Vs Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 365 (S.C.)

Execution – Limitation – 12 years – Starts to run from the date of decree/order of appellate Court and not the date of decree of trial Court even if appeal is dismissed. (Baba Balbir Singh Vs Ram Kishan Chela Budh Dass) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 273 (P&H) 

Execution – Third application filed beyond period of limitation – Cannot be said to be in continuation of the previous two application when the first application was dismissed for non prosecution and second application was dismissed for non filing of process fee – Held, third application filed beyond limitation is not maintainable and has been rightly dismissed by Executing Court. (State Bank of India Vs M/s.Day Old Farm & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 815 (P&H)