Sanjay Karol JUDGMENT
Sanjay Karol, J.
1. By way of this appeal, the judgment dated 04.01.2006 in Civil Revision No. 715/2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, is called into question by the Appellants. This order is assailed on the ground that the execution application was filed after 12 years from the date of the decree, and the same was therefore, barred by time. Consequently, it is prayed that the Revisional Court was not justified in dismissing the revision petition.
2. The question which arises in this Appeal before us is whether the date on which the compromise decree dated 26.04.1960 was entered into in Civil First Appeal No. 11/1959 or the date when the final decree was passed by the Civil Court in Suit No. 30 A/87 i.e. 31.03.1994, will be considered for establishing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter "the Act") for instituting execution proceedings?
3. It is imperative to discuss the legislative provision governing the limitation period in the execution of a decree i.e., Article 136 of the Act. The said Article is specific as it prescribes and deals with the applications for the execution of decrees and orders. It provides that the execution proceedings have to be initiated within 12 years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place.
4. This Court, in Deep Chand v. Mohan Lal 
MANU/SC/0234/2000 : (2000) 6 SCC 259, Paragraph 5 (2 judges), while dealing with the interpretation of Article 136 of the Act made pertinent observations to the effect that:
i. A decree or order becomes enforceable from its date;
ii. In appropriate cases the court passing the decree may prescribe the time wherefrom the decree becomes enforceable on a future date.
iii. The purpose of an execution proceeding is to enable the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of his decree.
iv. In case where the language of the decree is capable of two interpretations, one of which assists the decree-holder to obtain the fruits of the decree and the other prevents him from taking the benefits of the decree, the interpretation which assists the decree-holder should be accepted.
v. A decree is not to be rendered futile on technicalities. A rational approach is necessitated in cases where a decree has been the subject of prolonged litigation and a fair construction is to be given thereto.
5. In Akkayanaicker v. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu and Anr. MANU/SC/0793/2004 : (2004) 12 SCC 469, this Court (2-Judge Bench) held that in view of the words "when the decree or order becomes enforceable" occurring in Article 136 of the Act, the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the decree becomes capable of........