• Article 136 of Limitation Act

The Plaintiff have filed a suit for (O.S.No.381/1969) Specific performance of the above agreement before the Vth Additional Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad parties have entered into a compromise (1st compromise) and wherein, the Respondents herein have offered to give 20 acres and 39 guntas to the Appellant/plaintiff.whenthe Respondents have failed to honour their commitment as per theabove 1 st compromise decree, the DHR/Plaintiff filed the presentE.P.No. 58/1984 before the executing court for execution.In this E.P. also, again both the parties have entered into another compromise and as per the 2 nd compromise, the DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, after foregoing 8 acres 39 guntas.
[deleted](2nd Compromise decree) DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, and physical possision has been given JDR.. 
30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court, for registration of the sale deed, Basing on the said compromise decree,the MROafter collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Subregistrar,has issued a certificate
[deleted] After issuing the above certificate, the petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Authority claiming that the MRO has notgiven any notice before issuing the said certificate and also the MRO has no jurisdiction to entertain the said case.The RDO opinioned that since it is a decree passed by a civil court and that the MRO has rightly passed the said order and hence there is no need to middle with the orders of the lower court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
[deleted] As against the orders of RDO, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present Revision. After due enquiry,the Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed the orders passed by the below revisional authorities. of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattdar Pase book act.
[deleted]. As against the said orders of joint Collector, the Revision Petitioners/defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the orders of
below authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition.

[deleted] As against the said order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In this, the Division Bench has quashed all the orders passed below authorities and also set aside the orders of the High Court, Single Judge. DB said that compromise decree is not valid document for section 5-a of act.
SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiffpreferred this SLP and the SLP is Dismissed on 13/10/2015

Q1. Now i have approached the lower court and file to Open E.P.No. 58/1984 and execute the 2nd compromise decree
Q2. Does the article 136 of limitation act any effect on my case as i am fighting legal battle from MRO TO SUPREME COURT.
Q3. What about the limitation of the 2nd compromise decree.
Asked 4 years ago in Civil Law

First answer received in 30 minutes.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

12 Answers

Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') prescribes a period of twelve years for the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil court. It provides that the period would commence when the decree or order becomes enforceable.

2) Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed, or when an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded shall also be excluded

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
87932 Answers
6207 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

No the limitation act wont effect you as you were in litigation and under section 5 limitation act your delay shall be condoned for reason being you were in bone fide litigation so it wont be struck by the limitation act.

the limitation of the 2nd compromise decree shall be counted from date passed but the litigation period can be excluded.

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
25516 Answers
179 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

After a decree is out into execution within the period of limitation under Article 136, questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree may arise and such questions including the question as to the delivery of possession shall be determined by the executing court. Article 136 of the Limitation Act is the proper Article which prescribes the period of limitation for an application to execute cither a decree or an order passed by a Civil Court.

You may explain and convince the court that how this is brought under within the limitation of referred article 136 of the limitation act.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
78089 Answers
1543 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Dear Client,

Limitation for execution is same for 2nd decree from the date it becomes non performed.

And very recently Supreme Court in one such case has decline the excuse of WRONG FORUM LITIGATION.

So, Execution and application for condonation of delay should be drafted with due diligent & legal expertise.

SC ‘Admires’ Stamina of ‘Chronic Litigants’, Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50, 000 [Read Judgment]...

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-admires-stamina-chronic-litigants-imposes-costs-rs-50-000-read-judgment/

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
21481 Answers
31 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

"Section 14

14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction.

(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which

the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil

proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision,

against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to

the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which,

from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to

entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during

which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil

proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision,

against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such

proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of

jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908 ), the provisions of sub- section (1) shall

apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court

under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground

that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court

or other cause of a like nature."

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
87932 Answers
6207 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

You have to file the affidavit and pray for condonation of dealy on ground that the delay has occurred due to ongoing litigation which was under wrong jurisdiction bone fidely.

Refer section 14 limitation act

Shubham Jhajharia
Advocate, Ahmedabad
25516 Answers
179 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

article 14.

Yogendra Singh Rajawat
Advocate, Jaipur
21481 Answers
31 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

If you rely upon the the unsuccessful legal proceedings which led you all these years without any fruitful result, you may annexe the certified copies of all those relevant documents to claim exemption from the effects of applicability of the limitation act .

You can mention the chronological events from day one till the end to establish that there was no delay in approaching the court for the proper remedy and relief hence you are not late to aproach this court, at last.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
78089 Answers
1543 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

If the said compromise is subject matter of same litigation then you can't. If not then you can exercise the lower court remedy.

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
27261 Answers
88 Consultations

4.4 on 5.0

Dear Sir,

Limitation does not apply in your case as there is continuous litigation as such it will save limitation.

Kishan Dutt Kalaskar
Advocate, Bangalore
6050 Answers
381 Consultations

4.8 on 5.0

Hello,

Refer to the following judgment:

M. P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise; (2015) 7 SCC 58.

Wherein it has been held that:

"the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation if the applicant has approached another forum with regards to the same grievance"

Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
17940 Answers
377 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Let me know if some further assistance is required

Anilesh Tewari
Advocate, New Delhi
17940 Answers
377 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer