Limitation for specific performance execution runs from the decree's stipulated date unless a true contingency or legal bar postpones enforceability.

For limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a decree for specific performance becomes enforceable when it is executable according to its own terms, and time runs from the stipulated date unless execution is postponed by a true contingency or legal bar. Here, the decree required demarcation and deposit by 23.9.1966 and allowed the court to execute the sale deed on default, so no external contingency prevented enforcement. Limitation therefore began on 23.9.1966, not on the later alleged date of measurement and demarcation. On that basis, the execution petition was time-barred and the dismissal of the petition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the execution petition for specific performance was barred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and when the decree became enforceable for the purpose of computing limitation.

Analysis: The decree fixed 23.9.1966 as the date by which the judgment-debtor was to measure and demarcate the property and the decree-holder was to deposit the balance sale consideration. The decree also provided that, on compliance with those directions, the sale deed was to be executed and, in default, the court could execute it. The decree was not contingent upon any external event beyond the terms of the decree itself. Ordinarily, a decree becomes enforceable when pronounced, and Article 136 starts running from the date the decree becomes enforceable. The court distinguished cases where execution is postponed by a true contingency or statutory bar, and held that none of those exceptions applied here. If the judgment-debtor failed to perform the direction within the stipulated time, the decree-holder could proceed with execution, including resort to the executing court for the necessary steps under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The execution petition was barred by limitation, because limitation began to run from 23.9.1966 and not from the later date when the property was allegedly measured and demarcated.

Final Conclusion: The decree-holder's challenge failed, and the dismissal of the execution petition as time-barred was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a decree becomes enforceable when it is executable in terms of the decree itself, and limitation runs from the stipulated date unless execution is postponed by a true contingency or legal bar.

---