Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta recently dismissed a review application challenging an order that allowed the impleadment of legal heirs in an execution case. The petitioners argued that the execution case was time-barred, asserting that the addition of legal heirs after the expiration of the limitation period rendered the proceedings untenable. However, the court upheld its earlier ruling, holding that the execution proceedings were not barred by limitation and that the award holder had acted in good faith.

The case concerned an arbitral award issued on February 19, 2009, against multiple award debtors, including Late Aditya Vikram Gupta. The execution case (E.C. No.1016 of 2015) was filed seeking enforcement of both its monetary and injunctive components. The award debtors contended that the execution case was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly due to the non-impleadment of the legal heirs of Late Aditya Vikram Gupta. They argued that the execution application should have been filed within twelve years from the date of the award and that the omission to implead the legal heirs within the limitation period rendered the execution case defective.

The review applicants further contended that Section 21 of the Limitation Act does not apply to execution proceedings. They argued that Section 21 applies only to suits and does not extend to execution applications. They relied on case precedents, including Manmotha Nath Mitter v. Rakhal Chandra Tewary and Union of India v. Shambhaji Rao, to support their claim. They further argued that even if Section 21 were applicable, the proviso allowing relaxation in cases of good faith should not apply to the award holder, who allegedly failed to exercise due diligence in impleading the legal heirs.

Additionally, the review applicants asserted that the arbitral award was not severable. They contended that since the award imposed distinct liabilities on each award debtor, the non-impleadment of one debtor’s legal heirs rendered the execution case defective. The applicants also claimed that the award holder failed to serve timely notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deprived them of the opportunity to furnish details regarding the deceased award debtor’s legal heirs.

The award holder opposed these claims, stating that the execution case had been initiated within the limitation period and that the omission of the deceased award debtor’s heirs was unintentional. The award holder further contended that the other award debtors sufficiently represented the interests of the deceased award debtor’s estate and that the award remained enforceable.

The court examined the provisions of Order I Rule 10(5) of the CPC and Section 21 of the Limitation Act to determine their applicability to execution proceedings. The judgment noted that "Order I Rule 10(5) applies only to suits and not to execution proceedings, which are a continuation of the suit itself." It further observed that "Section 21 of the Limitation Act, which deals with limitation in the context of suits, does not directly apply to execution proceedings." The court rejected the review applicants’ reliance on Section 21 to bar the execution proceedings, pointing out that their argument was inconsistent, as they had simultaneously contended that Section 21 was inapplicable to execution cases.

On the issue of good faith, the court found that "the award holder learned of the deceased debtor’s legal heirs only on September 9, 2024, and moved for their impleadment on September 23, 2024, which indicates due diligence." The court held that the award holder had acted in good faith within the meaning of the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act. The judgment stated that "the delay, if any, in impleading the heirs of the deceased debtor was not deliberate but rather due to the non-disclosure of relevant details by the award debtors themselves."

Regarding the severability of the award, the court determined that "the arbitral award was jointly and severally enforceable against all award debtors and was not segregated into distinct liabilities." It held that the execution proceedings could not be deemed defective due to the late impleadment of the legal heirs. The court further noted that "the award debtors had collectively contested the arbitral proceedings, and the interests of the deceased award debtor were adequately represented."

The judgment also addressed the argument regarding notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. It observed that "since the award holder was not made aware of the death of the award debtor earlier, there was no question of failing to comply with procedural requirements." The court further noted that "the award debtors who participated in the execution proceedings had themselves failed to provide information regarding the deceased debtor in a timely manner."

The court concluded that there was no apparent error on the face of the record that warranted a review of its earlier decision. It stated that "the scope of review is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise." The judgment further recorded that "mere discovery of a new or important matter is not sufficient ground for review unless it was not within the knowledge of the party despite due diligence." Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition and directed that the execution case be placed before the appropriate bench for further proceedings.

Case Title: Sujata Gupta Winfield and Others vs. CIC Society
Case Number: R.V.W.O. No.48 of 2024, G.A. 1 of 2024, arising out of I.A/GA. No.3 of 2024, E.C. No.1016 of 2015
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

[Read/Download order]