Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers And ... vs Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 572 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD.
Versus
HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATION LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. AADIT R SANJANWALA(9918) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 09/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application is filed challenging the order
dated 09.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge,
Bharuch, by which Execution Petition No. 51 of 2023 has been
dismissed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall be referred to as per
their original status as that in the Execution Petition.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Revision Application are
that, pursuant to the order passed in Special Civil Suit No. 227 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
1996, whereby the said suit filed by the applicant was allowed, and
the Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, on 30.06.2011 granted a decree
against the opponent for a sum of Rs. 22,48,068.68 with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the opponent filed
First Appeal No. 3207 of 2011, challenging the judgment and decree
dated 30.06.2011. The said appeal is pending, and there has been no
stay granted by the First Appellate Court.
5. Thereafter, on 27.10.2023, the applicant filed Execution
Petition No. 51 of 2023. Preliminary objections were filed by
opponent vide Exh. 10, on the ground that the Execution Petition
was not maintainable. After considering the documentary evidence,
the executing court, dismissed the said Execution Petition, on the
ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation, prescribed
under the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Hence, the present Revision Application has been filed.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly argued that
the executing court could not have dismissed the Execution Petition,
given that the defendant had filed First Appeal No. 3207 of 2011,
and the same was pending. It has been argued that, when the said
first appeal was filed on 29.09.2011, the period of limitation was
suspended, and the Execution Petition, having been filed during the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
pendency of the appeal, could not be considered time-barred. To
substantiate his argument, the learned advocate for the applicant has
relied on the judgments reported in the case of :
Chandni Prasad and others vs. Jagdish Prasad and others,
(2004) 8 SCC 724
Shanthi vs. T.D. Vishwanath, (2019) 11 SCC 419
Ratan Singh vs. Vijay Singh and others, (2001) 1 SCC 469
7. Learned advocate for the applicant has argued that since an
appeal was filed and entertained, for all intents and purposes, the suit
continues, and when an appellate court passes a decree, the decree of
the trial court merges with the decree of the appellate court.
Therefore, as the appeal was filed in the present proceedings, the
Execution Petition cannot be said to be time-barred.
8. Per contra, the learned advocate for the opponent has argued
that the appeal was filed by the opponent and the appellate court has
not granted any stay on the proceedings. He has stated that,
admittedly, the Execution Petition was filed more than 12 years after
the judgment and decree were passed by the Civil Court. Therefore,
as per the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the period
of limitation is 12 years from the date on which a decree becomes
enforceable. In the present case, the decree became enforceable on
June 30, 2011. Moreover, it has also been argued that the mere filing
of an appeal would not affect the enforceability of the decree, as the
Appellate Court has not stayed the operation and implementation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 227 of 1996.
Therefore, the executing court rightly rejected the Execution
Petition. The learned advocate for the opponent has relied on the
judgments reported in the case of:
Ram Bachhan Rai and others vs. Ram Udaar Rai and others,
(2006) 9 SCC 446
State of Haryana and others vs. Vikaar Singh, (2006) 9 SCC
He has argued that the Execution Petition was filed beyond the
period of limitation, and the executing court rightly dismissed it.
9. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having
considered the order passed by the executing court on May 9, 2025,
the fact remains that the judgment in Civil Suit No. 227 of 1996 is
dated June 30, 2011. Although an appeal has been filed by the
opponent, the Appellate Court has not granted any stay on the
operation and implementation of the said order. Therefore, the
decree was enforceable by the applicant. It has come on record that
the Execution Petition was not filed within 12 years, as stipulated
under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and was filed on October
27, 2023. The only point that the applicant has raised for not filing
the Execution Petition within a period of 12 years from the date of
judgment and decree is that an appeal was filed by the opponent.
This Court, apt to refer judgment in Ratan Singh vs. Vijay Singh
and others (supra), more particularly, para 8 & 9 which reads as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
under :
"8. When is a decree becoming enforceable?
Normally a decree or order becomes enforceable
from its date. But cases are not unknown when the
decree becomes enforceable on some future date or
on the happening of certain specified events. The
expression "enforceable" has been used to cover
such decrees or orders also which become
enforceable subsequently.
9.Filing of an appeal would not affect the
enforceability of the decree, unless the appellate
court stays its operation. But if the appeal results in
a decree that would supersede the decree passed by
the lower court then it is the appellate court decree
which becomes enforceable. When the appellate
order does not amount to a decree there would be
no suspension and hence the lower court decree
continues to be enforceable."
10. Moreover, the judgment relied upon by the learned
advocate for the applicant in Chandni Prasad and others vs.
Jagdish Prasad and others (supra), is not applicable to the facts
of the present case. In that case, an Execution Petition was filed
after a final decree was passed, and in the meantime, a first
appeal had been filed and was subsequently dismissed. A
second appeal was then filed challenging the said order, which
was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate
Court for a fresh determination on the merits of the appeal.
Presumably because the second appeal filed by the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/572/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
was allowed, the Execution Petition was dismissed. This
judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case
because the applicant has not challenged the judgment and
decree, therefore, there was no stay. Similarly, the judgment in
Shanthi vs. T.D. Vishwanath (supra), is also not applicable to
the present case, in that case, the second appeal was dismissed
on 30.12.2003, and the Execution Petition was filed in July
2006. In paragraph 5 of that judgment, it was noted that a stay
was operating in favor of the judgment debtor during the
pendency of the appeal. The court held that the doctrine of
"merger" is based on principles of propriety in the hierarchy of
the justice delivery system.
11. In view of the above referred facts the order that has been
passed by the Executing Court is as per per provisions of law
and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present Revision
Application is required to be dismissed.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA/RAJAT
