This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 20-07-2005, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, rejecting the E.P. (SR) No.4479 of 2005 in O.S. NO.859 of 1974.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff (Masjid) filed suit in O.S.No. 859 of 1974 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent-defendant (Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Limited), for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 31-10-1977. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner plaintiff filed appeal in A.S. No. 455 of 1977 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad who, vide judgment dated 16-06-1978, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the said judgment, the respondent-defendant preferred second appeal. A learned Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 30-07-1980, dismissed the second appeal. The S.L.P. (C) No. 9486 of 1980 filed by the respondent-defendant assailing the said judgment dated 30-07-1980, was also dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 30-07-1980. To execute the said judgment, the petitioner plaintiff filed E.P. on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The E.P. on contest by the respondent-defendant, by reason of the order impugned in this revision, was dismissed by the Court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff-decree holder and the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant judgment-debtor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree of declaration of title and recovery of possession dated 16-07-1978 obtained by the petitioner-plaintiff in appeal A.S. No. 455 of 1977 against the respondent-defendant from the Court of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which set aside the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1977, passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the suit O.S. No. 859 of 1974, attained finality on 30-07-1980, when the Honble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the respondent-defendant assailing the judgment and decree passed by this Court dismissing the second appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. To execute the said judgment and decree, the petitioner plaintiff filed the E.P., but the Court below by reason of the order impugned in this revision, has erroneously rejected the same on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

5. He submitted that though Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Limitation Act) prescribed the period of limitation for executing the decree, other than a decree of injunction, as 12 years, but in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Wakf Act), which barred the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in relation to recovery of wakf properties, the E.P. filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to execute the decree, beyond the period of twelve years, is maintainable, more so when the Wakf Act, which is a beneficial legislation is silent about the period of limitation with respect to filing execution petitions for executing the decrees obtained prior to its enactment.

6. He submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Wakf Act, the respondent defendant is prevented from taking the plea of adverse possession. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai v. Deceased Dhulabhai Galbabhai1 and Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati2. He submitted that the Court below committed grave error in refusing to entertain the E.P., and prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the C.R.P. be all