Whether the period spent by the decree holder before the appellate Court where a limited stay was granted would save the period of limitation for the execution of the decree under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, in view of Section 15 of the Limitation Act is the question of law arises in this revision.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.548 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The respondent herein is the decree holder in the suit. I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in O.S.No.548 of 1995.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.548 of 1995 against the defendants seeking for a mandatory injunction for the removal of the constructions on the public road. The defendants in their turn filed O.S.No.283 of 1995 on the file of the same Court for a simple perpetual injunction. Both the suits were clubbed and tried jointly by the trial Court. Through a common judgment dated 05.04.1999, O.S.No.548 of 1995 was decreed and O.S.No.283 of 1995 was dismissed. The defendants preferred A.S.No.51 of 1999 from the judgment in O.S.No.548 of 1995 and the defendants also preferred A.S.No.52 of 1999 from the judgment in O.S.No.283 of 1995. Again through a common judgment dated 25.02.2001, both the appeals were dismissed. Curiously, the defendants preferred Second Appeal No.414 of 2001 from the judgment in A.S.No.52 of 1999. No Second Appeal was preferred from the judgment in A.S.No.51 of 1999. Thus, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.548 of 1995 as confirmed by the judgment in A.S.No.51 of 1999 has become final.

4. So far as O.S.No.283 of 1995 is concerned, as the dismissal of the same was confirmed through the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 1999, a Second Appeal was preferred in S.A.No.414 of 2001. The High Court was pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status quo, through the order dated 24.06.2001 in the Second Appeal No.414 of 2001. Ultimately, the Second Appeal No.414 of 2001 was dismissed on 15.03.2004 primarily on the technical ground that the Second Appeal ought to be against the judgments and decrees in A.S.No.51 of 1999 as well as A.S.No.52 of 1999 and that the Second Appeal from the judgment in A.S.No.52 of 1999 alone is not maintainable.

5. Thereafter, E.P.No.462 of 2004 was laid by the plaintiff on 28.06.2004. The judgment debtors raised an objection that the execution petition was not maintainable on the ground that the decree was executable within three years under Article 135 of the Limitation Act and whether counted from the date of decree before the trial Court which was 05.04.1999 or counted from the date of decree before the appellate Court which was 26.02.2001, the execution petition was laid beyond three years and that the execution petition consequently is not maintainable. The execution Court held that the execution petition was within time. The objection raised by the defendants was overruled. The execution Court, through the impugned order dated 15.09.2005 in E.P.No.462 of 2004, directed for the removal of the construction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.5057 of 2005. The High Court was pleased to allow the revision. The order in E.P. No.462 of 2002 was set aside. The execution petition was remanded to the execution Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the impugned orders were passed by the execution Court. The defendants once again preferred the present revision impugning the orders of the execution Court.

6. The point for consideration is whether the execution petition is within time.

7. O.S.No.548 of 1995 was a suit for mandatory injunction. Under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, the decree in a mandatory injunction suit is liable to be executed within three years. The decree was passed in O.S.No.548 of 1995 on 05.04.1999. A.S.No.51 of 1999 was preferred therefrom before the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool dismissed A.S.No.51 of