V.CHITAMBARESH & Ors. v. Pentapati Bangararaju (AIR 1964 SC1454) and Ramachandra Reddyar V. Texo International (2011(2)KLT & Ors.

V.CHITAMBARESH, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P No.158 of 2012 ------------------------------------Dated this the 30th day of October, 2012

O R D E RThe petitioner contended that E.P No.3/2011 is filed well beyond the period of twelve years from the date of decree and hence barred by limitation under Section 136 of the LimitationAct, 1963. The petitioner contended that only the period from the date of award (11-11-2000) till the date of first instalment(31-1-2001) can at best be excluded under Section 15 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner lastly contended that the respondent can at any rate realize only the amount trimmed by the award and not the amount due under the decree in the suit.

Article 136 of the Limitation Act is specific that the period of twelve years would start from the date of the subsequent order or from the date on which the default is committed in making the payment. E.P No.3/2011 has been filed on 3-1-2011 which is within twelve years from 11-11-2000 and at any rate within twelve years from 31-1-2001. The award of the Lok Adalath can as well be treated as a subsequent order in C.R.P No.158 of 20122terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Therefore it can safely be concluded that E.P No.3/2011 is filed in time within the period of twelve years and hence maintainable.

Even otherwise the dismissal of E.A.No.606/2009 filed for revival of E.P.No.147/1998 was for statistical purpose only.E.P.No.3/2011 can only be treated as continuation ofE.P.No.147/1998. This is particularly so when the order dismissing E.A.No.606/2009 on 15.10.2009 permits a fresh execution petition to be filed by the respondent. A reference in this connection to the decisions in Pentapati China Venkannaand others V. Pentapati Bangararaju and others (AIR 1964 SC1454) and Ramachandra Reddyar V. Texo International (2011(2)KLT 455) are apposite. E.P.No.3/11 if treated to be acontinuation of E.P.147/1998 has been filed within the period of12 years permitted under law.

The petitioner has yet another grievance in that the respondent is attempting to realize the amount due under the decree in the suit. This is done notwithstanding the awardwhereunder the amount due to the respondent has been scaled C.R.P No.158 of 20123down to Rs.3,32,000/- with interest. I do find force in this submission since the respondent is itself banking on the award only to get over the bar of limitation. The respondent therefore cannot be permitted to claim any amount other than what is permitted under the award by the Lok Adalath. There is of course some ambiguity as regards the rate of interest applicable on the sum of Rs.3,32,000/- found due under the award. Theaward merely insists on Prime Lending Rate (PLR) without specifying with the exact rate of interest applicable. The rate of interest @ 12%per annum on the amount so found due would be just and equitable under the circumstances. I hold that the respondent is only entitled to the sum of Rs.3,32,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 11.11.2000 till the date of realization.