ORDER :

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. The unsuccessful decree holders-plaintiffs filed this civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order, dated 28.2.2019, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, passed in EP No. 24 of 2017 in OS No. 52 of 1996.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri N. Sri Ram Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-DHrs and of Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-JDrs. I have perused the material record.

3. The core facts, in brief, are as follows:

In the afore-stated suit, the Trial Court granted a decree, dated 15.10.2001, in favour of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs-DHrs ['DHRs', for short] and against the respondents-defendants-JDrs ['JDRs', for short]. The operative portion of the decree of the Trial Court reads as under:

"1. That the 1st defendant be and is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the levelled up earth all along X X1 X2 X3 to a length of 850 links, width of 30 links and height of one link and also the 15 and 32 mounds of earth abutting X1 X2 line on northern and eastern sides respectively within 3 (three) months from today i.e., 15.10.2001, in default, the same will be done through the process of law;

2. That the 2nd defendant be and is hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the levelled up earth in MNOP plot to a length of 90 links, width of 60 links and height of four links within 3 (three) months from today i.e., 15.10.2001 failing which the same will be done through the process of law;

3. That the defendants and their men be and are hereby restrained by way of consequential permanent injunction from levelling up their lands in any manner and causing obstruction for free flow of rain water etc., from plaintiffs land towards east upto the Peddivaripalem Road as shown in the plaint plan;

4. That the defendants do pay plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 3283/- towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs Rs. 8/-."

4. Aggrieved of the said decree of the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in AS No. 97 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. In the said appeal, pending disposal of the appeal, the JDrs obtained orders of stay of execution of the decree of the Trial Court and the stay orders were in force from 16.8.2004 to 1.9.2015. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, dismissed the appeal, by decree & judgment, dated 1.9.2015, and therefore, the stay order stood automatically vacated. Thus, by the decree of the appellate Court, the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. After the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the decree of the Trial Court, the DHrs filed the subject execution petition, on 22.8.2017, for execution of the decree insofar as the reliefs of mandatory injunctions. The JDrs filed their counter in the EP and contended that the EP is barred by law of limitation since it was filed beyond period of three years, which is the period of limitation provided under Article 135 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for execution of decrees for mandatory injunctions. The executing Court took the view that the decree of the Trial Court is executable after expiry of three months from the date of decree, that is, 15.10.2001, as three months time was granted to the JDrs for compliance of the relief of mandatory injunctions granted by the decree. The executing Court also observed in the impugned order that from the said date viz., 15.10.2001 to 16.8.2004 there are no stay orders granted by the appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal, that is, approximately for a period of two years and seven months and that the said period has to be excluded from the three years period of limitation available for execution of the decree granting mandatory injunctions and that the EP therefore ought to have been filed within the period of remaining five months from the date of the decree of the app