A compromise declaratory decree can be executable if it includes consequential benefits flowing directly from the declaration sought.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-The revision petition has filed by the petitioners - Judgment debtors against the order dtd. 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta in Execution Case No. 3/2004 by which the application for execution of the decree dtd. 11.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta was allowed and the learned Executing Court held that in terms of decree dtd. 11.1970 the respondents - decree holder were entitled to perform Seva Puja in the Bhanwal Mala Ji Temple and also to receive offerings and for that warrant for possession was issued so that they could make Seva Puja and receive offerings, be quashed and set aside.

2. It may be stated here that Ram Pal Pun (present decree holders -respondents are Legal Representatives of Rampal Pun) filed a civil suit No. 369/1953 in the Court of Munsif , Merta for declaration against Kuna Pun and Mohan Pun (Judgment debtors petitioners are legal representatives of Kuna Pun and Mohan Pun) seeking declaration regarding their right to worship in Bhanwal Mata Ji temple.

3. The said suit was dismissed by the learned civil Judge, Merta vide Judgment and decree dtd. 30.11.1956. Against the Judgment and decree dtd. 30.11.1956, Ram Pal Pun filed a civil appeal No. 35/57 in the Court of Dist. Judge, Merta in which a decree by way of compromise was passed declaring the rights of the worship between the parties (Rampal Pun and Mohan Pun) in the maimer that both the parties would have right of worship and receiving offerings 6 months each in a year by turn and thereafter turn by turn, they would perform the Seva Puja and receive offerings and the offerings which were being presented before the deity would be taken by that party in whose favour turn was running.

4. That compromise decree which was passed on 29.4.1957 was again amended on the basis of compromise through Judgment and decree dtd. 11.1970 passed by the Dist. Judge, Merta and according to fresh compromise decree and 11.1970, name of Kuna Pun was also added along with Mohan Pun (present petitioners are Legal representatives of Mohan Pun as well as Kuna Pun) meaning thereby that share ofJudgment debtors, namely, Mohan Pun and Kuna Pun in the Seva Puja of the temple was 50% and similarly share of decree holder Rampal Pun (present respondents are Legal Representatives of Ram Pal Pun) was 50% and thus Mohan Pun and Kuna Pun would have right of Seva Puja for 6 months each in a year, whereas right of Seva Puja of decree holder Rampal Pun would be for one year and thereafter the turn would rotate.

5. Thereafter the respondents - decree holders filed an application on 28.4.2004 for execution of the decree dtd. 29.4.1957 as amended on 11.1970 against the present petitioners - Judgment debtors stating inter alia that the petitioner -Judgment debtors were not allowing the respondents - decree holders to perform seva puja when their turn was due and the petitioners -Judgment debtors have put the locks in the premises of the temple and thus petitioners -Judgment debtors had deprived them of performing Seva Puja and receiving offerings in their turn and therefore, they sought execution of the decree dtd. 11.1970 passed by the learned

Dist. Judge with police help.

6. Notices of that execution applications were issued to the present petitioners and they filed their reply under Section 47 C.P.C. on 7.5.2004 and they took preliminary objection in the reply stating i) That the compromise decree in question dtd. 29.4.1957 which was amended on 11.1970 was null and void and therefore, it could not be got executed.

ii) That compromise decree if for the sake of argument was not null and void, but since it was declaratory decree, therefore, its execution could not be made and hence from this point of view also, the execution application should be dismissed as not maintainable.

iii) That as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation was 12 years and since execution of the decree dtd. 11.1970 was sought in th