JUDGMENT : Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. 1. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge (II), Dhenkanal in Civil Revision No. 16/8 of 1998/2002, the instant petition is filed by the judgment-debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution. By the said order, the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge (II), Dhenkanal dismissed the revision and thereby confirmed the order dated 24.1.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal in Execution Case No. 5/97, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the judgment-debtor petitioners regarding the maintainability of the execution proceeding has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 2. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted a suit for realization of Rs. 25,808.05 paise impleading Ram Bilash Sharma, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as defendant in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Dhenkanal (now Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Dhenkanal), which was registered as T.M.S. No. 5/37 of 1981-82. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 24.3.1982. Final decree was drawn up on 11.5.1984. Learned trial court passed the following order. "Perused the preliminary decree passed in the suit. Heard. Draw final decree accordingly in terms of preliminary decree." 3. The decree holder laid Execution Case No. 8 of 1985 for realization of decretal dues. The same was dismissed on 6.3.1987 on the ground that the petition was not maintainable due to mistake in the final decree. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application for amendment of the final decree dated 11.5.1984 for substituting the words "drawn up" in the place of "draw final decree". Learned court below allowed the same on 10.11.1994 and substituted the words "Final decree is drawn up accordingly" in place of "Draw final decree". Thereafter Execution Case No. 5 of 1997 was filed on 16.5.1997 for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor filed objection on 17.11.1997 challenging the maintainability of the execution case. It was contended that the petition was barred by limitation. Learned trial court by order dated 24.1.1998 dismissed the said petition. The judgment-debtor unsuccessfully challenged the same in Civil Revision No. 16/8 of 1998/2002 before the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge (II), Dhenkanal, which was eventually dismissed on 13.3.2003. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel for the opposite party. 5. Mr. The judgment-debtor unsuccessfully challenged the same in Civil Revision No. 16/8 of 1998/2002 before the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge (II), Dhenkanal, which was eventually dismissed on 13.3.2003. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel for the opposite party. 5. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the absence of anything to indicate that the time prescribed for filing of an execution application would be kept alive by successive application for execution, learned courts below committed manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the application of the petitioners. He further submitted that the decree passed by the learned courts below has become unenforceable due to afflux of time. Since the application for execution was not filed with the prescribed period of limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the decree is not executable. 6. Per contra, Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the opposite party supported the orders passed by the courts below. He submitted that the final decree was drawn upon 10.11.1994. Thus Execution Case No. 5/97 filed on 16.5.1997 is within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. The sole question hinges for consideration as to whether Execution Case No. 5/97 filed by the opposite party-decree holder is barred by limitation? 8. Admittedly, the preliminary decree was passed, i.e., on 24.3.1982. Final decree was drawn upon 11.5.1984. Execution Case No. 8 of 1985 was filed by the decree holder for realization of decretal dues. The same was dismissed on 6.3.1987 on the ground that the decree was not executable. On the basis of the application filed by the decree holder for amendment of the decree, learned trial court amended the final decree on 10.11.1994. It is apt to state here that previously learned trial court directed to draw final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. But by virtue of amendment, learned trial court deleted the words "draw final decree accordingly" and in its place the words "Final decree is drawn up accordingly" were substituted. When an application was filed by the decree holder bringing the notice of the court below that the mistake committed by the court, the order was corrected. The same is a mistake of the court. 9. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows:- “Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 136. When an application was filed by the decree holder bringing the notice of the court below that the mistake committed by the court, the order was corrected. The same is a mistake of the court. 9. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows:- “Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court. Twelve years 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: Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree grating a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.” 10. The period of limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is twelve years 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. In the instant case the final decree becomes enforceable with effect from 10.11.1994. Since the decree becomes enforceable with effect from 10.11.1994, the execution petition is well within time. 11. Actus Curie Neminmen Gravabit is an elementary rule of justice. No party should suffer by the mistake of the court. A court has inherent power to rectify its mistake and ensure that if a person has suffered by the mistake of the court, he should be restored upon the position he would have occupied had there been no mistake. 12. In the wake of the aforesaid, the irresistible conclusion is that the petition sans any merit deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.