counsel appearing for the petitioner that it has been filed after a period of 5 years does not hold any merit. The second objection which has been raised as regards the identification of the wall, the same had already been settled vide Order dated 7/9/2012 as passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 297/2012 and the same had attained finality, wherein it has been categorically held that the wall in question is the western wall. The third objection which has been taken to the effect that the decree was not executable, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that it has been duly complied with, does not hold water in view of the fact that a perusal of Clause 4 of the Compromise Decree categorically shows about the compliance to be made by the defendant in respect to future construction which is in the nature of a perpetual injunction. The last objection which has been raised out here as regards that there is no suit land on the fact of it, cannot be accepted pursuant to the order of compromise decree whereby the parties have amicably agreed to recognize the particular boundary wall. In the compromise decree, it being specifically spelt out that there shall not be any construction or anything put 3 ft from the boundary wall which is on the western side of the suit land, the said contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water.
