This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal on 19.06.2006 in E.P.No.820 of 2003 in O.S.No.906 of 1989.

2. The judgment-debtor/defendant is the revision petitioner herein. The decree-holder/plaintiff filed E.P. against the revision petitioner under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC. The executing Court after making an enquiry into the E.P., allowed the same.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner filed the present revision petition.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the revision, may be briefly stated, as follows:

The respondent-decree-holder filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner in respect of the E.P. schedule property, which is a vacant site of an extent of 203 square yards. The learned trial Court while passing the decree on merits, noticed the fact that the revision petitioner without having a pretence of claim in the schedule mentioned property, illegally raised some constructions therein during the pendeny of the suit. Thus, the trial Court while passing decree, apart from granting relief of perpetual injunction also passed a decree granting mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent and against the revision petitioner directing him to remove the structures raised by him in the schedule mentioned property and also directed him to restore the possession of the said portion of the property to the respondent.

5. In A.S.No.41 of 1997 which was preferred by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor therefrom, the III Additional District Judge, Warangal confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and granted one month time to the revision petitioner to remove the structures raised by him in the schedule mentioned property illegally during the pendency of the suit and directed him to hand over the vacant site to the respondent decree-holder. The E.P. filed to enforce the said decree and judgment was allowed by the executing Court.

6. It has been contended by the revision petitioner before the executing Court as well as this Court that the period of limitation prescribed by Article 136 for executing a decree for mandatory injunction is three years. In the instant case, the respondent filed E.P. more than three years after passing of the decree by the Court of first instance and therefore, the E.P. is barred by limitation, even though it is filed within three years from the date of passing of the decree by the appellate Court.

7. The said contention was rejected by the executing Court holding that the appeal is a continuation of the original suit, the decree passed by the trial Court merged with the decree of the appellate Court, the appellate Court passed the decree on 09.08.2002, the E.P. is filed on 15.10.2003 and therefore, the E.P. is not barred by limitation.

8. The question therefore, arises for determination in this revision is whether the above mentioned order passed by the executing Court holding that the limitation starts from the date of passing of the decree of the appellate Court in a proceeding for execution relating to a decree for mandatory injunction can be sustained.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that mere filing of appeal shall not operate as stay of proceedings under a decree and the execution petition which was filed by the respondent is barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years from the date of decree passed in the original suit.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the executing Court rightly allowed the execution petition by holding that the appeal is a continuation of the original suit and the order passed in the E.P. does not require any interference in this revision.

12. It is true that Rule 5(1) of Order XLI of CPC lays down that the appeal shall no