Doctrine of merger governed execution limitation, and the appellate decree was treated as the operative decree within time.

A decree becomes executable when it becomes enforceable, and where a trial court decree is affirmed in appeal and again in second appeal, the doctrine of merger makes the appellate decree the operative decree for limitation purposes. Because only one operative decree can govern the same subject matter at a time, limitation for execution ran from the High Court decree, not from the trial court judgment. The execution petition filed in 2006 was therefore within the 12-year period, and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution petition filed in 2006 was barred by limitation for not having been filed within 12 years from the trial court judgment, or whether limitation ran from the appellate decree by reason of merger.

Analysis: The governing rule was that a decree becomes executable when it becomes enforceable, and a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure may be enforced whether it is passed by the trial court, first appellate court, or second appellate court. Once an appeal is entertained and decided on merits, the doctrine of merger applies, and there cannot be more than one operative decree governing the same subject matter at the same time. Since the trial court decree was affirmed in appeal and further affirmed in second appeal, the operative decree was the High Court decree. The execution petition was filed within time from the date of that decree.

Conclusion: The execution petition was within limitation and the limitation objection failed.

---