https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352967 A decree arising from a mortgage suit was found to be executable even though it was not drafted in the formal preliminary mortgage-decree format under Order XXXIV Rule 4 CPC. The omission was treated as a defect of form, not one affecting merits or jurisdiction, and Section 99 CPC prevented reversal on that ground. Because the decree was executable, Article 136 of the Limitation Act applied, giving a 12-year enforcement period; the Section 31-A application filed in 2006 was therefore within time. The Court also held that such a subsisting decree falls within the expression "decree or order" under Section 31-A of the 1993 Act, so recovery proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Dec 2017 20:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352967 A decree arising from a mortgage suit was found to be executable even though it was not drafted in the formal preliminary mortgage-decree format under Order XXXIV Rule 4 CPC. The omission was treated as a defect of form, not one affecting merits or jurisdiction, and Section 99 CPC prevented reversal on that ground. Because the decree was executable, Article 136 of the Limitation Act applied, giving a 12-year enforcement period; the Section 31-A application filed in 2006 was therefore within time. The Court also held that such a subsisting decree falls within the expression "decree or order" under Section 31-A of the 1993 Act, so recovery proceedings before the Tribunal were maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352967