JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:-

Respondent herein filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the present petitioner, i.e. Civil Suit No. 175/1 of 2001, which was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Arki, District Solan, H.P. on 09.06.2010 in the following terms:-

“This suit coming on this 9th day of June, 2010 for final disposal before me (Sapna Pandey), Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Arki, District Solan, H.P. in the presence of Sh. Bhupinder Sharma, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant already ex-parte. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over land comprising khasra No. 79, measuring 1-7 bigha situated in village Kiar, Pargna Kolka, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. and decreed for mandatory injunction. The suit is decreed with costs. Relief of mandatory is subject to the condition stated above in para No. 13.”

Copy of the decree sheet is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1.

2. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an application under Order 21, Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code for execution of the decree in issue before the learned Executing Court. As present petitioner/judgment debtor did not appear before the learned Executing Court despite service of summons, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 22.09.2015.

3. For the setting aside of ex parte order, an application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Executing Court in the month of April, 2018, which stood dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 13.5.2019. Thereafter, on 31.10.2019, learned Executing Court has ordered issuance of warrant of possession by demolishing whatever construction is found raised by judgment debtor over the suit land.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/judgment debtor has filed this petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against orders dated 13.05.2019 and 31.10.2019, praying for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the impugned orders dated 22.09.2015 and 31.10.2019 passed by learned Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge, Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P. in Execution Petition No. 6/10 of 2015, in Civil Suit No. 175/1 of 2010, titled “Paras Ram versus Karam Chand” while dismissing the application for setting aside ex parte order dated 22.9.2015 and further issuing warrant of possession by demolishing whatever construction is found raised on Khasra No. 79, Khara Khatauni No. 13/14, area measuring 1-7 bighas, situated in Village Kiar, Pargana Kolka, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the warrant of possession issued may kindly be recalled unexecuted and furthermore, execution petition may kindly be dismissed and justice be done. Any other relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper may also be passed while allowing the petition and justice be done.”

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the orders under challenge are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons:(a) the relief of mandatory injunction was granted in favour of decree holder subject to filing of requisite Court fee before the learned Trial Court within one month from the date of the judgment which was not done by the decree holder; (b) the execution petition was time barred as the same was not filed within the limitation provided under Article 135 of the Limitation Act; (c) the impugned order dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned Executing Court was bad in law as the same was passed by ignoring that there was no decree of possession passed in favour of the decree holder by the learned Civil Court. No other point was urged.

6. The stand of the learned Counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder has been that the Court fee w