JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are the widow and children of late Shri Balbir Singh, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The dependents of Balbir Singh aforesaid filed a claim petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’) and finally the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) awarded a compensation of Rs. 55,000/- to the dependents against the owners of the vehicles vide award dated 31.1.1973. The case of the petitioners is that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Jee Kaur and Risal Singh are their close relations and petitioner No. l being the widow was always assured by the respondents that the compensation would be paid as and when it is required by her at the time of her necessity in order to look after the welfare and maintenance of her children. When the children of petitioner No. 1 became major and of marriageable age, she requested respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the amount of compensation but they refused to pay the same. On that the petitioner filed an execution application before the Tribunal on 13.1.1988 for the realisation of the compensation. Along with the application she also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The said proceedings were contested by the respondents and finally the Tribunal vide order dated 30.9.1988 dismissed the execution application of the decree-holders/claimants on the ground that the application was barred by limitation and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to such execution proceedings. Operative part of the order of the Tribunal is contained in paragraphs Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof, which is reproduced below in order to appreciate the submissions raised by the petitioners in the present revisions petition in which directions have been sought for the quashment of the order dated 20.9.1988 (Annexure P1) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (I), Rohtak, exercising the powers of the Tribunal and it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the order passed by the Tribunal (Annexure P1) is illegal on the ground that under Section 110E of the Act the Tribunal was bound to issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector so that the Collector could proceed to recover the same in the same manner, as arrears of land revenue and that the Tribunal has also erred in holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act are not applicable to such application for the realisation of the compensation :-
“2. Admittedly the award, the amount of which is sought to be recovered now through this execution application was passed or 31.10.1973 by Shri R.S. Gupta, the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. It is clear from the execution application itself that before filing the present execution application on 13.1.88, no other execution application was filed by the petitioners-decree holders to recover the above mentioned amount of award. This shows that present execution application has been filed by the petitioners after the expiry of 12 years period from 31.10.1973, the date of award.
3. Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 provides 12 years period for execution of any decree or order of any civil court and 12 years period will commence from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable. In the present case the award dated 31.10.1973. had become enforceable from the day it was passed and the petitioners could lead execution of the said order at any time within 12 years from 31.10.1973, the date of the award.
4. As no execution application was filed by the petitioners within 12 years from 31.10.1973 and they have filed this execution application only after the expiry of 12 years period from 31.10.1973, the date of the award, so the effect of not filing execution application within time prescribed by Article 136 is to render the award inoperative and unenforceable after the expiry of 12 years period.
5. The petitioners have filed an application along with execution application for condonation of delay but a perusal of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to an application under the provisions of Order 21 CPC which deals with the execution of the decrees and orders.”
2. I have already reproduced the operative portion of the award and after going through the contents of the revision petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision petition is devoid of any merit, mainly for the reasons firstly that there was no prayer made by the decree-holders for the issuance of the certificate under Section 110-E of the Act. It is well settled that the award of the Tribunal has a force of decree and is enforceable as such and keeping this in view, the provisions of Order 21, C.P.C. are applicable in such like proceedings. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Tribunal was bound to issue the certificate under Section 110-E of the Act and to send the same to the Collector for the realisation of the amount as arrears of land revenue, still every action or cause of action is subject to limitation. Admittedly, in this case the award was passed on 31.10.1973. The execution could be filed within 12 years from the date of the passing of the award as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The decree-holders never filed the execution application and for the first time the execution proceedings were launched for the realisation of the compensation on 3rd January, 1988, which was hopelessly barred by limitation. The prayer of the claimants for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be accepted by the executing Court because this section is not applicable to the execution proceedings. It only applies to the suits and the appeals. It is also not established that before filing the executing proceedings on 13th January, 1988, the decree-holders ever took any steps for the realisation of the amount of compensation. The decree-holders cannot be allowed to rise from slumber at their own will for the realisation of the compensation because the cause of action for the realisation of the amount arose in their favour with the passing of the award on 31st October, 1973. The execution application could be filed within 12 years from the said date. In the absence of the filing of such application, the decree-holders for the first time initiated the steps on 13th January, 1988 and the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the execution was barred by time and was rejected. While interpreting the provisions of law, moral sympathies cannot override the judicial conscience of a Court.
3. Resultantly, this revision petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.