Article 136 of limitation act 1963

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 22 April 2018 This query is : Resolved
The Plaintiff have filed a suit for (O.S.No.381/1969) Specific performance of the above agreement before the Vth Additional Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad parties have entered into a compromise (1st compromise) and wherein, the Respondents herein have offered to give 20 acres and 39 guntas to the Appellant/plaintiff.whenthe Respondents have failed to honour their commitment as per theabove 1 st compromise decree, the DHR/Plaintiff filed the presentE.P.No. 58/1984 before the executing court for execution.In this E.P. also, again both the parties have entered into another compromise and as per the 2 nd compromise, the DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, after foregoing 8 acres 39 guntas.
21-02-1985(2nd Compromise decree) DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, and physical possision has been given JDR..
30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court, for registration of the sale deed, Basing on the said compromise decree,the MROafter collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Subregistrar,has issued a certificate
25-09-1993 After issuing the above certificate, the petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Authority claiming that the MRO has notgiven any notice before issuing the said certificate and also the MRO has no jurisdiction to entertain the said case.The RDO opinioned that since it is a decree passed by a civil court and that the MRO has rightly passed the said order and hence there is no need to middle with the orders of the lower court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
04-12-2000 As against the orders of RDO, the Revision Petitioners/Defendants have preferred the present Revision. After due enquiry,the Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed the orders passed by the below revisional authorities. of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattdar Pase book act.
15-10-2001. As against the said orders of joint Collector, the Revision Petitioners/defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the orders of
below authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition.

07-02-2005 As against the said order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In this, the Division Bench has quashed all the orders passed below authorities and also set aside the orders of the High Court, Single Judge. DB said that compromise decree is not valid document for section 5-a of act.
SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiffpreferred this SLP and the SLP is Dismissed on 13/10/2015

Q1. Now i have approached the lower court and file to Open E.P.No. 58/1984 and execute the 2nd compromise decree
Q2. Does the article 136 of limitation act any effect on my case as i am fighting legal battle from MRO TO SUPREME COURT.? does the time spent from MRO to SUPRME COURT IS EXCLUDED?
Q3. What about the limitation of the 2nd compromise decree. does any section of limitation act help me out in this matter.?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 23 April 2018
50 years have passed ever since you filed a suit and there after got the suit decreed and filed 1st compromise decree you tried to execute the second compromise decree.Appeals,Revisions etc to High court and Supreme court took their own time. This time should be excluded. @!2 years time limit has been given according to section 136 of Indian Limitation Act. for execution of a decree including compromise decree. You can reopen the case explaining few months delay by showing sufficient cause for each days delay after deducting the above courts approached by respondent and certainly you can get your compromise decree(2nd) executed.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 23 April 2018
thanks you
Responds say in their affidavit as per article 136 the period of 12 years has to be commenced from the date of decree becomes enforceable the petitioner chosen to enforcement of the decree after lapse of 31 year.
What will be my counter or reply to above ( are their any citation or any perticular section of limitation act come in to force to exclude the time spent from MRO to SUPREME COURT. ?