The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the decree, the applicability of the Limitation Act, and the validity of execution proceedings are crucial factors in determining the outcome of a civil revision application.

JUDGMENT

1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for parties.

3. This revision is a classic example of attempt, which is made by judgment debtors to deny the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree granted by the Court of law.

4. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants in extenso and Dr. Sundaram, learned counsel for non applicant. Both the learned counsel took me through the compilation of this civil revision application, which includes judgment and order passed by this Court (Coram: A. S. Chandurkar, J.) in Second Appeal No.418/2017 dated 12.09.2017, by which second appeal filed on behalf of the present applicants was dismissed and also judgment of this Court (Coram: Manish Pitale, J.) in Writ Petition No.5680/2018 and Writ Petition No. 162/2019 whereby this Court, while allowing Writ Petition No.5680/2018 filed by the present respondent, dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the present petitioners.

5. In this Civil Revision Application, the applicants have impugned the order passed by learned executing Court dated 17.06.2020 in Regular Darkhast No. 183/2016 below Exh.-126, whereby the learned executing Court has rejected the application filed on behalf of the applicants/judgment debtors for dismissal of the execution proceedings.

6. The contention of Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicants/judgment debtors is that the executing Court ought to have dismissed the execution proceedings inasmuch as according to him, the prayer made in the execution parcha for issuance of warrant of possession of the suit plot was not maintainable because it is his submission that learned appellate Court has granted only the decree of mandatory injunction and not the decree of possession. He, therefore, submitted that the approach on behalf of learned executing Court in rejecting the application cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. He relied on judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Navani and anr Vs. Herbert Joseph Pereira and Ors: reported in 2003 (3) Mh. L. J. 989 to submit that the Court below has committed error in invoking the jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, therefore, submits that the order be quashed and set aside. It is his submission that since the applicants/judgment debtors have already deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.7440/- as claimed in the execution parcha, nothing remains. He, therefore, prayed that this revision be allowed.

7. Per contra, Dr. Sundaram, invited my attention to the prayer clauses made in the plaint which are reproduced in affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the non applicant and also invited my attention to the operative portion of the decree passed by the appellate Court and submitted that there was a specific prayer of non applicant for possession in the suit and the said was granted by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2016. He also submitted that while granting decree of possession, mandatory injunction was granted in favour of non applicant as claimed in the plaint itself, seeking direction to hand over vacant possession by removing the construction made by the judgment debtors as prayed in the suit. He also submitted that present applicants approached before the Hon'ble Apex Court on two occasions. Firstly, challenging the judgment delivered by this Court in Second Appeal No.418/2017 confirming the judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court and subsequently by challenging the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5680/2018 along with Writ Petition No.162/2019 arising out of earlier order passed by learned executing Court and on both occasions, Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed on behalf of the present applicants. He submitted that the decree of possession has attained fi