2006 INSC 0045
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                           Ram Bachan Rai and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             Ram Udar Rai and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 2000

                                    (Arijit Pasayat and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ)
                                                      18.01.2006

                                                    JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT J

1. The High Court of Patna dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the appellant summarily.
Challenge in the Civil Revision was to the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, VII, and
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 Act') was untenable.

2. 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.
3. 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 PvL Ltd. and Another,
6, Hameed Joharan (Dead) and others v. Abdul Salam (Dead) by Lrs. and others, 37.
4. 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.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the correct position of law is
expressed in Shankar Balant Lokhande (Dead) by LRs. v. Chandrakant S. Lokhande and another,
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 been made to a three-Judge Bench in Chiranji Lai
(dead) by LRs. Han Das (dead) by Lrs.,

 .
6. This case may also be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders to
be placed along with Chiranji Lai's case (supra).