The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of a decree of permanent injunction, its execution by subsequent purchasers, and the significance of a declaratory decree of title.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against an order dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Case No.62807/2016. Petitioners herein were Applicants before the Executing Court being the subsequent purchasers of the suit property from the original Decree Holder and Respondent No.1/Delhi Development Authority was the Judgment Debtor.

2. The case has a chequered history with a whole web of facts interlinked with each other. Joginder Kumar filed a suit for permanent injunction being Suit No.203/1989 titled `Joginder Kumar v. Yudhvir Khanna and Others', in respect of Plot No.WZ-4 out of Khasra No.2364, behind Tea Stall, Manoj Dhaba, Main Road, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property'). An interim injunction was granted vide order dated 12.09.1989, whereby Defendants therein were directed not to dispossess Joginder Kumar, the Plaintiff.

3. During the pendency of the suit, another suit for declaration and injunction was instituted by Joginder Kumar with respect to the same suit property being CS No.257/1989 (old number) on 13.12.1989. The suit was decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on 01.12.1990 in favour of Joginder, as DDA and other Defendants had failed to file written statements. Execution Petition bearing No. 42/1990 was filed by Joginder and directions were issued by the Executing Court to DDA to remove the barbed wire from the suit property as well as the Board of the DDA with further directions not to interfere in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit property by Joginder. In appeal bearing RCA No. 53/1990, decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.01.1993 and the suit filed by Joginder was dismissed. Regular Second Appeal was filed before this Court bearing RSA No.33/1993. DDA contested the appeal on the ground that the suit property falls in Khasra No.2364/1, whereas Joginder in the garb of the suit property was actually encroaching upon land falling in Khasra No.3550/2365, which was covered under acquisition Award No.5/70-71, pursuant to which possession vested with DDA.

4. On 24.01.2000, this Court disposed of the RSA with direction to the Trial Court to give opportunity to DDA to file written statement and dispose of the suit on or before 31.12.2000. DDA, however, chose not to contest the suit and did not participate again. Finally, the Trial Court decreed the suit partially in favour of Joginder and an injunction decree was passed on 23.12.2000, however, relief seeking declaration of ownership of the suit property was denied.

5. Post the passing of the decree, Joginder assigned/transferred all his rights, title and interest in the suit property to Sh. Ashok Kumar Ohri and Sh. Ved Prakash Gulati by executing a Sale Deed dated 01.06.2007, the Petitioners herein. Petitioners filed a Contempt Petition on 12.12.2008 being Cont. Cas(C) 462/2008, which was dismissed as not pressed on 18.02.2011. Thereafter, Petitioners sought execution of the decree by filing Execution Petition bearing No.119/2009 on 03.06.2009, which was subsequently registered as Execution No.80/2011 (re-numbered 22807/2016), on being transferred. This execution was filed aggrieved by the barbed wiring affixed around their plot by DDA along with a Board of the DDA indicating the suit property as `DDA land'. Petitioners sought restoration of ownership and possession over the suit property as well as a restraint against DDA from interfering with their ownership and possession. An application was also filed under Section 151 CPC dated 24.03.2010 for removal of the Board reading DDA land as well as the fencing/boundary wall from the plot and relief of restoration of possessory title of the plot was also sought. Subsequently, another application dated 29.07.2010 was filed seeking leave of the Court to continue prosecuting the Execution Petition on the ground that Petitioners were subsequent purchasers of the suit property from th