1997 (10) TMI 369 - SC - Indian Laws

Executing Court must determine when cause of action accrued and applicable limitation period under Article 181 or 182

Parsion Devi and others Versus Sumitri Devi and others

The SC remanded the case to the Executing Court to determine when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder and decide whether Article 181 or ... Whether Article 181 or Article 182 of the Limitation Act would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case? Held that:- With a view to do complete justice between the parties, it appears appropriate to us to direct that the Executing Court shall, while deciding the Executing Application on merits also consider this aspect and return a finding as to when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder and the consider the question as to which Article of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the scope and limits of the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically:Whether the review petition filed against the order dated 25.4.1989 by a single judge of the High Court was maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC;Whether the review court (Sharma, J.) exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively treating the review petition as an appeal and re-examining the merits of the order;Which Article of the Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Act (Article 181 or Article 182) applies to the execution application filed in 1986 for enforcement of the injunction decree passed in 1977;Whether the Executing Court and the High Court had properly adjudicated the question of limitation and the timing of the breach of the decree;The appropriate procedural course for resolving the dispute regarding limitation and enforcement of the decree.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Maintainability and scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPCRelevant legal framework and precedents: Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review of a judgment or order only on limited grounds, primarily when there is a 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,' discovery of new evidence, or to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise and the error must be self-evident without requiring elaborate argument or reasoning. This principle was reiterated in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, where the Court explained the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record, holding that review lies only for patent errors. Similarly, in Smt. Meera Bhanjia v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, the Court held that review proceedings must be strictly confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and cannot be used to re-examine the merits of a decision.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the grounds of the review petition filed by the judgment debtors against the order dated 25.4.1989 and found that none of the grounds fell within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The review petition essentially challenged the correctness of the order on the question of limitation without pointing to any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the review court (Sharma, J.) ignored these limitations and treated the review petition as an appeal by reversing the order on merits.Key findings: The Court observed that Sharma, J. mechanically invoked the phrase 'error apparent on the face of the record' but the error identified was not self-evident and required a long-drawn process of reasoning, which is impermissible in review proceedings. The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision but only to rectify patent errors.Application of law to facts: Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the impugned order dated 6.3.1997 passed by Sharma, J. was beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents contended that the review court had merely corrected a mistake in the earlier order, but the Court rejected this, stating that the review court had effectively re-heard the merits, which is impermissible.Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned review order dated 6.3.1997.Issue 2: Determination of applicable Article of the Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Act and timing of breach of decreeRelevant legal framework: The Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Act contains different Articles prescribing limitation periods for various types of suits and execution proceedings. Article 181 and Article 182 prescribe different limitation periods applicable depending on the nature of the decree and the cause of action.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that neither the Executing Court nor the High Court in the Civil Revision petition had recorded any finding as to when the decree was allegedly breached, which was essential to determine which Article applied. Without this factual determination, it was not possible to decide the limitation question conclusively.Key findings: The Court found that the Executing Court and the High Court had not considered the date or time when the injunction was violated, which was critical to ascertain the limitation period applicable under either Article 181 or Article 182.Application of law to facts: The Court directed that the Executing Court should decide the execution application on merits, including the question of limitation, by determining when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder. The Court emphasized that this question must be considered not as a preliminary objection but along with other issues on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations of the High Court judges.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court implicitly rejected the approach of both the Executing Court and the High Court judges who had treated the limitation question as a preliminary issue or had ruled without factual findings on the timing of breach.Conclusion: The Court remanded the matter to the Executing Court for fresh consideration of the execution application on merits, including the limitation issue, to be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.''An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.''A review petition has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.''While the first [erroneous decision] can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter [error apparent on the face of the record] only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction.''Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a review of the order of petition.''Neither the Executing Court nor the High Court recorded any finding as to the date or time when the decree was allegedly breached, which was an essential fact to be determined before considering which Article of the Limitation Act applies.''The Executing Court shall dispose of the execution application on merits in accordance with law expeditiously, considering the limitation question along with other issues on merits uninfluenced by previous observations.'Core principles established include the strict limitation of review jurisdiction to patent errors apparent on the face of the record, the inadmissibility of using review proceedings as an appeal, and the necessity of factual findings on the timing of breach to determine the applicable limitation period in execution proceedings.Final determinations:The impugned review order setting aside the Civil Revision order was quashed as beyond the scope of review jurisdiction;The Civil Revision order remanding the matter to the Executing Court for decision on merits was restored;The Executing Court was directed to decide the execution application on merits, including the limitation issue, after determining when the decree was breached;The limitation question to be considered in the execution proceedings on merits, not as a preliminary objection;The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.