ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel Sri.M Shivaprakash for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.A Ravishankar for respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the judgment debtor seeking to set aside the order dated 08.11.2024 on I.A.No.2 in Execution Petition No.114/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at N.R.Pura, itinerate Court of Koppa. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as the judgment debtor and the decree holder as per their status in the execution petition. 4. The suit came to be filed by the decree holder, who was the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24.08.1988 in respect of Schedule A and C properties. After the contest, the trial court decreed in respect of 'B' schedule property. The entire sale consideration amount was paid. It was also agreed that the plaintiff would pay an additional sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendants within a time frame of 6 months, which was agreed upon between the parties, and he would have no objection to acquiring the right over the 'C' schedule property. 5. The petitioner/JDR being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court preferred RFA.No.934/2004, wherein a joint memo came to be filed and the same was accepted, and accordingly the RFA came to be disposed of in view of the joint memo filed by the decree holder and the JDR. It is contended that as per the order in RFA.No.934/2004 dated 23.09.2010, it was ordered that the plaintiff shall deposit a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- within a period of 6 months from the date of disposal of the RFA and then the defendants shall execute the sale deed. In this regard, the parties filed a memo in O.S. No.62/1996; the petitioner/JDR sought for payment of Rs.18,00,000/- in terms of the memo, and as the respondent/DHR insisted for execution of the sale deed and the trial Court did not pass an order and directed the parties to approach the executing Court for execution of the deed of sale. 6. It is further stated that thereafter the DHR filed an execution petition in Ex.No.114/2022 for execution of the decree and the joint memo terms and conditions agreed upon in the RFA proceedings. 6. It is further stated that thereafter the DHR filed an execution petition in Ex.No.114/2022 for execution of the decree and the joint memo terms and conditions agreed upon in the RFA proceedings. In the execution petition, the JDR filed an application in IA No. 2 under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 CPC taking a plea that the execution petition is not maintainable, in view of it being barred by the law of limitation, more particularly Article 136 of the Limitation Act. As the decree came to be passed in the RFA on 23.09.2009, the execution petition was filed on 26.09.2022. So therefore, on calculation from the date of the order passed in the RFA proceedings till the date of the filing of the execution petition, 12 years had already expired, and therefore there was no scope for the executing Court to entertain the execution petition. Along with it, he took up a plea to rescind the contract as contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act. This application, upon contest, came to be rejected by the executing Court, which is now the subject matter of challenge in this Court. 7. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel Sri.M.Shivaprakash, appearing for the JDR, that the impugned order passed by the executing Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore the same requires to be set aside and consequently the execution petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of bar of limitation. It is further contended that the execution petition itself is not maintainable. The executing Court has failed to appreciate this aspect and has continued with the execution petition which again is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. The same requires interference, and consequently the execution petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. So also it is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR that the DHR has not come before the Court with clean hands. He has not shown bona fide or respect to the orders of the RFA proceeding and so also to the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties in the RFA proceedings. So also it is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR that the DHR has not come before the Court with clean hands. He has not shown bona fide or respect to the orders of the RFA proceeding and so also to the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties in the RFA proceedings. He has not adhered to the spirit of the joint memo by making good the payment of the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- which was agreed in the joint memo before the RFA proceedings and has taken his own sweet time to make good the payment on the last 2 days prior to the expiry of 6 months and therefore he deserves no sympathy or lenience, and therefore the execution petition ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and also on the conduct of the decree holder. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel Sri.M.Shivaprakash for the petitioner/JDR that for not having deposited the amount within time and for not having filed the execution petition within the time as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the question of appreciating the continuation of the execution petition would not arise, and the same requires to be rejected, which has not been considered morso on the ground of maintainability of the execution by the executing Court and accordingly he seeks to allow his petition and quash the order passed on IA.No. 2 and consequently the entire proceedings in the execution petition No. 114/2022 on the ground of bar of limitation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.Ravishankar appearing on behalf of the decree holder vehemently contends that the original suit proceedings in OS.No.62/1996 came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder and the same came to be challenged before this Court in RFA No.934/2004 and as wisdom could prevail, the parties agreed to enter into a joint settlement to amicably resolve the issue and filed a joint memo dated 23.09.2010. The joint memo was accepted by the this Court in the RFA proceedings and an order came to be passed wherein plaintiff/decree holder agreed after deliberations and dialogues between the parties that he would pay an additional amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendant, JDR, petitioner herein by way of deposit in the trial Court within a time frame of 6 months as agreed in paragraph No.4 of the order in RFA No.934/2004. It was also agreed that upon deposit, the defendant shall jointly execute the said deed in favour of the plaintiff or his only son Sri. K.B. Jayachandra or their nominee or nominees as desired by them and receive the money in deposit. 10. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that JDR further agreed that they would have no objection to the plaintiff/DHR or his nominee or nominees acquiring rights over the Schedule 'C' property from the appropriate authority. There was also a clause included in the joint memo and the order of the RFA Court that if the defendants failed to turn up for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff may obtain the conveyance of the suit schedule 'B' property from the agency of the Court and the defendants would not be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- that would be deposited, and the plaintiff would be entitled to the said amount from the Court." 11. It is also agreed further that "in the event the respondent/plaintiff fails to pay the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- as agreed upon, the joint memo by way of compromise stands cancelled, and the appeal shall be restored on board for adjudication before this Hon'ble Court". It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to the decree of the original suit, which finally culminated in the RFA proceedings in RFA 934/2004 and in compliance with the joint memo, the petitioner/decree holder deposited Rs.18,00,000/- on 21.03.2011, which is well within the time prescribed in the RFA proceedings at paragraph No.4, which stipulated a time frame of deposit of the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- within 6 months. Therefore, he contends that the said amount of Rs.18,00,000/- is deposited well within the last date of expiry of 6 months. Therefore, he contends that the said amount of Rs.18,00,000/- is deposited well within the last date of expiry of 6 months. He further contends that pursuant thereto, it is the onus and obligation of the petitioner/JDR to execute the said deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the 'B' schedule property which was not done by the JDR, and the DHR filed an application before the trial Court in OS No. 62/2016 on 18.08.2011 for execution of the sale deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the joint memo in the RFA proceedings. 12. In view of the deposit made on 21.03.2011 and since the JDR did not come forward to execute the sale deed, he filed an application on 18.08.2011 in the O.S.No.62/2016 by way of an application for a direction to the JDR to execute the sale deed in favour of the DHR. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court on 20.03.2014 by holding that the trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to deal with the execution of the decree and that the plaintiff/decree holder would have to initiate a separate execution petition; accordingly, the said application came to be dismissed on 20.03.2014. This being the state of affairs, the plaintiff/decree holder filed an execution petition on 26.09.2022. He contends that the filing of the execution petition is well within the period of limitation of 12 years, as the amount deposited by the DHR was on 21.03.2011, and therefore calculating the date of deposit from 21.03.2011 till the date of filing of the execution petition on 26.09.2022 is well within the period of 12 years. It is well within the time period as contemplated under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. It is further contended by learned counsel that he would also be covered under Section 14 of the limitation Act for exclusion of the time in the proceedings in a bona fide Court without proper jurisdiction, as he was under the impression that the Civil Court would execute the decree in view of the RFA proceedings, and therefore he prosecuted by mistake in the wrong forum, which should be permitted to be excluded. Therefore, he further contends that the question of bar of limitation would not be helpful and would not arise in the present case, so also the question of rescission of contract is far fetched, and the question of rescission would not arise as the DHR is well within time as stipulated in the RFA proceedings at paragraph No.4 and has deposited the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- well within 6 months as contemplated therein, and thereafter it was the obligation and duty of the petitioner/JDR to have come forward to execute the sale deed in respect to the 'B' schedule property which was not done by the JDR. 13. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as per paragraph No.7 of the RFA proceedings, it is clearly stated that if the defendants, i.e. the petitioner/JDR herein fail to turn up for execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/DHR, the plaintiff may obtain conveyance of the suit 'B' schedule property from the agency of the court and the defendant, the petitioner/JDR would not be entitled to a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- that would be in deposit and plaintiff would be entitled to the said amount from the Court. Hence, he contends that the amount so deposited by the plaintiff/DHR in the trial Court at Koppa would have to be ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff/DHR as per clause No.7 of the RFA No.934/2004. An amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was deposited in the trial court. Therefore, he contends that the present petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit both on facts and law and it is far-fetched with regard to the question raised on the law of limitation factually as well as legally, and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent presently is aged more than 102 years and the petitioner has been prolonging and protracting the proceedings only to cause further harassment to the respondent. Consequently, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 15. I have heard the learned for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the executing Court. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the original suit O.S.No. 62/1996 came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff/DHR. Consequently, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 15. I have heard the learned for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the executing Court. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the original suit O.S.No. 62/1996 came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff/DHR. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/JDR challenged it before this court in RFA No.934/2004 So also it is not in dispute that the parties to the proceedings in the RFA proceedings agreed to resolve the issue by filing a joint memo. Accordingly, a joint memo came to be filed, based on which the RFA No.934/2004 came to be disposed of in accordance with the joint memo vide order dated 23.09.2010. 16. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff/decree holder filed an application on 18.08.2011 before the trial Court in O.S.No. 62/1996 to execute the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as that of the RFA proceedings. In the meanwhile, it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff/Decree holder deposited a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- on 21.08.2011 before the trial Court. It is also a fact that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/DHR on 20.03.2014, as the same is not maintainable, provided liberty to the plaintiff/decree holder to initiate separate execution petition in the concerned Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff/decree holder filed an execution petition on 26.09.2022 in execution petition No.114/2022 seeking to execute the judgment and decree of the trial Court also in accordance with the joint memo filed before the RFA proceedings and the decree passed by the RFA proceedings in RFA No.934/2004. 17. It is seen that in the said execution petition petitioner/JDR herein filed an application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 CPC for rescission of contract. This application and consideration by the executive Court came to be rejected. The Executing Court has appreciated the contentions of the JDR as well as the DHR and has come to a conclusion at paragraph No.9 which is worthy of extraction. "Further the main contention of the judgment debtor that the decree holder with on malafied intention he has not filed the execution petition within a period. The Executing Court has appreciated the contentions of the JDR as well as the DHR and has come to a conclusion at paragraph No.9 which is worthy of extraction. "Further the main contention of the judgment debtor that the decree holder with on malafied intention he has not filed the execution petition within a period. The submission of the learned counsel for judgment debtor cannot be accepted because as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act for execution of decree specific performance a period of limitation is 12 years when the decree became enforceable. Further as per order passed in O.S.No.62/1996 the decree holder filed the present petition within prescribed period of limitation. Further as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A No.934/2004 within six months the decree holder deposited the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- before the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru. Further the scope of execution petition is limited and the executing court cannot go behind the decree and if the decree holder fails to comply of order of the Hon'ble High Court the liberty was given to the judgment debtor to restore the said R.F.A. and same was mentioned at para No.8 of the joint memo. On perusal of entire records if the decree holder fails to compliance of the order or agreement under such circumstances the rescission of contract would arose. Hence, there is no merit in the said application. Hence the above said reasons my answer to point No.1 in the Negative. " 18. It is the contention taken by the learned counsel for the JDR before the executing Court that the execution petition is not maintainable in view of the bar of the limitation Act as per Article 136, which prescribes an outer limit of 12 years for execution of the decree for specific performance which is limited to 12 years. It would be relevant at this stage to extract Article 136 for the sake of convenience and better understanding. Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as under: 19. On a careful perusal of Article 136 of the limitation Act 1963, it would be relevant to note that the time limit prescribed is when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The second option is where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money. Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as under: 19. On a careful perusal of Article 136 of the limitation Act 1963, it would be relevant to note that the time limit prescribed is when the decree or order becomes enforceable. The second option is where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money. The third option is given for the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date. The fourth option is at recurring period. All these four conditions stipulated in Article 136 would have to be read separately and provide separate cause of actions for invoking the execution petition. In the present case on hand, vide the judgment in RFA 934/2004, as per clause 4 of the judgement which was rendered on 23.09.2010, it specifically states that the parties have agreed on further dialogue and deliberation and that the plaintiff/DHR would pay an additional sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to the defendants by way of deposit in the trial court within a time frame of 6 months. 20. The plaintiff/DHR herein has deposited the amount of Rs.18,00,000/- within the period of 6 months. Pursuant to the deposit of the amount, the obligation shifts to the defendant who shall jointly execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his only son Sri.K.B.Jayachandra or their nominee or nominees as desired by them and receive the money deposited. So, therefore there is a clear cut obligation cast on the petitioner/JDR to jointly execute the seal deed in favour of the plaintiff or his only son or their nominees as desired upon receipt of Rs.18,00,000/- as and when deposited by the plaintiff/DHR. Admittedly, the plaintiff/DHR has deposited Rs.18,00,000/- on 21.03.2011 which is well within the time of 6 month period. 21. It is also stated that the defendants further agree that they would have no objection if the plaintiff or his nominee or nominees acquired right over the Schedule 'C' property from the appropriate authority, which is an order passed in favour of the plaintiff. In case they would want to acquire any right on the 'C' schedule property, they could do so by approaching the appropriate authority. In case they would want to acquire any right on the 'C' schedule property, they could do so by approaching the appropriate authority. It is also relevant to note that if the defendants failed to turn up as contained in clause 7, that if the defendants failed to turn up for execution of the sale deed in the favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff may obtain the conveyance of the suit schedule 'B' property from the agency of the Court and the defendants would not be entitled to the sum of Rs.18,00,000 that would be in deposit, and further it is stated that the plaintiff could be entitled to the said amount from the Court. These conditions imposed are on the basis of the joint memo filed by the respective parties who had agreed before this Court mutually and voluntarily without any force, ill will or coercion. 22. The only thing that remains is the execution of the terms and conditions put into an agreement by way of the joint memo by the parties i.e., plaintiffs, defendants, the petitioners and respondents herein. Now coming to the case on hand, the Executing Court has deliberated upon the contentions raised by the JDR with regard to the petition being barred by the law of limitation and for rescission of contract and has rightly come to a conclusion that an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- has been deposited well within a period of 6 months before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru which is now transferred to Koppa and it is also very clearly stated by the Executing Court that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and that if the decree holder fails to comply with the orders of the High Court, the liberty was given to the Judgment Debtor to restore the said RFA which is anyway contemplated in the joint memo filed in paragraph No.8 in the RFA proceedings which has not been utilized by the petitioner/JDR. Coming to the aspect of rescission of contract, it would be relevant to extract Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act which reads as under: 28. Coming to the aspect of rescission of contract, it would be relevant to extract Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act which reads as under: 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed .—(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require. 23. The sum and substance of the provision is that where the purchaser or lessee does not within the time period allowed by the decree or such further period as the Court may allow, pay the purchaser or other sum that the Court has ordered him to pay. The vendor or the lessor may apply the suit on which the decree is made to have the contract rescinded on such application. In my humble opinion there is no case made out by the petitioner/JDR to show that the plaintiff/DHR has not performed the part of the contract to invoke the provision or appreciate the rescission of the contract as contemplated under Sction 28(1) of the specific relief Act which is also appreciated by the learned executing Court in its impugned order. Therefore, upon careful perusal of the impugned order and the findings rendered by the learned judge, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason or any material that is placed before the Court by the petitioner/JDR to hold otherwise the well-reasoned order passed by the executing Court to reverse the order and to allow the application of the petitioner or this petition. Under the circumstances I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is dismissed. 2. Under the circumstances I pass the following order. ORDER The petition is dismissed. 2. It is needless to mention that the Executing Court, while dealing with the execution petition, shall strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the joint memo which is culminated into a decree in RFA.No.934/2004 in the letter and spirit. 3. Ordered accordingly. 4. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, pending application, if any, would pale into insignificance. 5. The executing Court shall take into consideration clause No.7 of the order passed by the RFA Court while considering the execution petition and pass necessary orders to that effect.