Under challenge is order dated 22-7-2014 whereby the court below revived E.A NO.225/90 which was closed for statistical purposes.
2. OS 4/1973 was a suit for money which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Execution was taken out and since there was a stay from the appellate court, it appears that the execution petition filed by the decree holder was closed for statistical purposes . After the appeal was disposed of, the decree holder sought to revive the E.P. and filed E.A.No. 224/1990 for the said purpose. The objection taken is that it was after seven years that the E.A. was filed and therefore it is barred by limitation.
3. The Court below was of the opinion that limitation will not apply in reviving execution petition which was closed for statistical purposes and there is no justification in C.R.P.No.594 of 2014 2 the contention raised by the judgment debtor.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the above order contended that Article 137 of Limitation Act applies and there has to be some period of limitation before the expiry of which the revival has to be sought for.
5. There is no such rule as that the revival should be within a specific period. The E.A. going by the order impugned, was closed for statistical purposes and therefore EP will be deemed to have been pending. It is only a formal petition that is required to be filed to revive the E.P. The court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petition filed for revival was not barred by limitation and the decree is executable.
This petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Stu //True copy//
P.A to Judge
P.B HAVADASAN, JUDGE.