The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of an execution petition for mandatory injunction on the ground of limitation, holding that the petition filed six years after the decree was time-barred under Article 135 of the Limitation Act.
None
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
R.Shanmugam ...Petitioner
Vs
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 06.03.2021 passed in the E.P.SR.No. 10329 of 2020 in O.S.No. 2772 of 2006 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai may be set aside and the E.P. may be directed to be taken on file for disposal on merits.
1/7
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nellajappan For R1 & R3 : Mr. S.T. Raja For R2 : No appearance
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order passed in E.P.SR.No.10329 of 2020 in O.S.No. 2772 of 2006 wherein the petitioner herein has filed a execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code to execute the order passed by the Trial Court by removing the newly erected transformer and its superstructure adjacent to the suit properties within two months on or before 11.10.2011.
filed the main suit for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the transformer installed in the suit property and for permanent injunction not to erect new transformer in the suit property. The said suit was decreed on 11.08.2011. Thereafter, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 503 of 2011 and the appeal was also dismissed on 21.07.2014. Therefore the
2/7
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
decree has to be executed within three years since the decree is for mandatory injunction. But the Execution Petition was filed only in the year 2020. Therefore, the Trial Court declined to execute the Execution petition. Challenging the said order the present revision petition is filed.
3/7
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
barred by limitation.
records.
4/7
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
suit in favour of the petitioner through the judgement dated 11.08.2011 and therefore the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 503 of 2011 before the first Appellate Court and the said appeal was also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court dated 21.07.2014. The present execution petition was filed only in the year 2020. As per Article 135 of Limitation Act for the enforcement of decree granting mandatory injunction the limitation period is three years from the date of decree or whether the date is fixed for performance such date. In the case on hand also, the appeal was dismissed on 21.07.2014 and therefore within three years from the date of dismissed appeal, the petitioner ought to have filed the petition to execute the decree for mandatory injunction but he failed to do so. Therefore the present suit is barred by limitation.
on the ground that execution petition for mandatory injunction to be filed within three years from the date of decree, therefore, the execution petition is
5/7
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
barred by limitation and rejected the execution petition. The above said order
passed by the Execution Court is well reasoned and it does not warrants any interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion this Court is of the view that this Civil Revision Petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
01.08.2024
nsl
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Citation : Yes/No
To
6/7
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
P.DHANABAL,J
nsl
C.R.P.No.3512 of 2022
01.08.2024
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an execution petition for a decree granting mandatory injunction is barred by limitation if filed more than three years after the date of the decree or appellate order?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Shanmugam
The Assistant Engineer, MES(D) North/Tondiarpet, Chennai
The Contractor, Installation of Transformers, TNEB, M.E.S.(D) North
The Chairman, TNEB
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
