JUDGMENT 1. The present execution application is now restricted only against' the judgment-debtor No.1. The said application was filed on 5th June, 1995 for execution of the decree which was passed on 8th March, 1982. The judgment-debtor No. 1 is contesting the application on two fold' grounds viz. limitation: and non-service of writ of summons. From the decree it appears that the same was drawn up on 8th August, 1983. 2. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a decree passed by any Civil Court can be executed within a period of 12 years from the date when the decree becomes enforceable. The word 'enforceable is of significance' pronouncement of the judgment in the open Court automatically does not become a decree. The decree has to be drawn up and engrossed in accordance with the judgment which is the ministerial function of the Court. After the decree is drawn up the same is required to be stamped; At least upto the stage of drawing up of the decree it is the ministerial function of the Court. Till such time the decree is not drawn up the same cannot become enforceable except, however, as provided for in Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code when an oral application is made for execution of a decree for payment of money. 3. In (1) Sankar Bulbhant Lokhade Vs. Chandra Kanta, Shankar Lakhade, a judgment of the Supreme Court, cited by Mr. Kar, appearing in support of the application reported in 1995 (3) SCC 413 the Supreme Court was considering the scope of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to ascertain as to when a decree becomes final so that the limitation starts running. In Paragraph 12 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed "after final decree is passed and a direction is issued to pay stamp papers for engrossing final decree thereon and the same is duly engrossed on stamp papers, it becomes executable or becomes an instrument duly stamped. Thus, condition precedent is to draw up a final decree and then to engross it on the stamp papers of required value. These two acts together constitute final decree, crystallizing the rights of the parties in terms of the preliminary decree. Till then there is no executable decree as envisaged in Order 20 Rule 18(2) attracting residuary Article 182 of the Old Limitation Act". 4. These two acts together constitute final decree, crystallizing the rights of the parties in terms of the preliminary decree. Till then there is no executable decree as envisaged in Order 20 Rule 18(2) attracting residuary Article 182 of the Old Limitation Act". 4. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court supports my view that the word 'enforceable' as used in Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should be read with due regard to the fact that the Legislature does not use any ward for frivolity and the said word makes it clear that the decree is required to be expressed on an acceptable paper, which in the common parlance is known as drawing up of a decree and only then "it would become enforceable. Since the decree was drawn up on 18th August, 1983 the first point of challenge of the judgment-debtor No.1 fails. 5. The second point as referred to above is without any substance. No application has been made by the judgment-debtor for setting aside the decree on the ground of non-service of the writ of summons. The Code specifically grants right to a litigant to apply for setting aside of an ex parte decree obtained without service of writ of summons. The judgment-debtor No.1, though alleged grounds, which are available under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, but has not taken recourse thereunder. The said fact speak for itself. In any event when a specific provision has been made in the Code, the party, who does not take recourse thereunder, should not be permitted to agitate the same in a colateral proceeding with an object of stalling execution of decree. In those circumstances there appears to be no merit of the defence to the present application. Therefore, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (e) of Column 10 of the Tabular Statement. Mrs. Indrani Chakraborty, an Advocate of this Court is appointed Receiver in terms of prayer (e) of the Column 10 of the Tabular Statement. Her initial remuneration of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the decree-holder at the first instance. The sale shall be effected by inviting public offer by issuing appropriate advertisement in a daily newspaper circulated in West Bengal. The sale will be subject to confirmation by this Court. The Receiver will give adequate opportunity to the intending purchases to inspect the property offered for sale. 5,000/- to be paid by the decree-holder at the first instance. The sale shall be effected by inviting public offer by issuing appropriate advertisement in a daily newspaper circulated in West Bengal. The sale will be subject to confirmation by this Court. The Receiver will give adequate opportunity to the intending purchases to inspect the property offered for sale. All parties including the Receiver to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking.