Limitation Act: Court Upholds Strict Time Limit Rules for Decree Execution

HAMEED JOHARAM Versus ABDUL SALAM

HAMEED JOHARAM Versus ABDUL SALAM - 2001 AIR 3404, 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 469, 2001 (7) SCC 573, 2001 (6) JT 311, 2001 (5) SCALE 163 Issues Involved:
1. Plea of Limitation in Execution of Decree
2. Interpretation of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963
3. Impact of Non-Furnishing of Stamp Paper on Limitation Period
4. Applicability of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899

Summary:

Plea of Limitation in Execution of Decree:
The Supreme Court addressed the key issue of the plea of limitation in the execution of a decree. The term 'execution' is defined as the process of enforcing or giving effect to a court's judgment, completed when the judgment creditor receives the awarded money or property.

Interpretation of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
Article 136 prescribes a twelve-year limitation period for executing a decree from when it becomes enforceable. The Court emphasized that enforceability means the decree is capable of being enforced, not necessarily when it becomes executable. The legislative intent is clear: a twelve-year certain period from the decree's date. The Court concurred with the Calcutta High Court's view that the term 'enforceable' should be read literally.

Impact of Non-Furnishing of Stamp Paper on Limitation Period:
The Court examined the factual matrix where the decree-holder failed to furnish stamp papers, delaying the decree's drafting. The Court held that the decree was enforceable from the date it was passed, and the delay in furnishing stamp papers did not extend the limitation period. The Court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that the limitation period is not suspended due to the decree-holder's inaction.

Applicability of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:
The Court rejected the argument that Section 35 of the Stamp Act, which bars unstamped documents from being acted upon, suspends the limitation period. The Stamp Act is a fiscal statute, and its provisions do not override the Limitation Act. The Court clarified that while a decree must be stamped to be executable, its enforceability and the start of the limitation period are not contingent upon the stamping process.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the twelve-year limitation period for executing a decree under Article 136 begins when the decree is enforceable, regardless of the furnishing of stamp papers. The Court underscored that statutory provisions of limitation must be strictly adhered to, and legislative intent should not be undermined by procedural delays.