IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a decree is barred by limitation if not filed within the prescribed period, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or legal errors.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:-

“1. To quash and set aside impugned orders dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in the Execution Petition No.2/2014 for all intent and purposes.

2. To execute the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.1-1 of 2006 titled as Tikam Dutt versus Dharma Nand in letter and spirit.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended along-with present petition.

3. The present petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction with respect to the suit land. The suit so filed was decreed on 13.10.2006. The aforesaid decree had been passed ex-parte.

4. In terms of the decree passed, the present respondent had been permanently retrained from causing any obstructions, interference in the light and air of the present petitioner. Besides the aforesaid, a decree for mandatory injunction was passed to the effect that the construction raised by the respondent over the suit land be demolished.

5. In order to set aside the ex-parte order, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code had been filed by the present respondent. The same had been dismissed. No appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 13.10.2006 had been filed by the present respondent. In view thereof, the same had attained finality.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, an execution petition had been filed under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2006, on 27.06.2013 seeking demolition of the constructions raised by the respondent after the filing of the suit till the filing of the execution petition, whereby obstruction to the light and air of the petitioner was being caused.

7. In response to the aforesaid, the respondent had submitted that the present petitioner had earlier filed an execution petition dated 21.05.2007 seeking implementation of the mandatory injunction decree in the case at hand. The same had been dismissed on 17.12.2011. Rather than laying challenge to the dismissal of the previous execution petition filed, the petitioner had preferred a fresh execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, on 27.06.2013.

8. Insofar as the enforcement of decree of mandatory injunction is concerned, in terms of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation prescribed is three years from the date of decree. The decree, in the case at hand, was passed on 13.10.2006. The present (subsequent) execution petition has been filed on 20.06.2013, therefore, insofar as enforcement of decree dated 13.10.2006 qua mandatory injunction is concerned, the execution petition so filed is barred by law of limitation. No infirmity can be found on this count with the findings returned by the executing Court.

9. Violation of a judgment and decree has to be proved beyond reasonable point as violation of decree has serious consequences of imprisonment and attachment of property. (Raj Kumar vs. Pushpinder, 2005 (2) SLJ 1520 H.P.). Raising of the illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner, in the case at hand, whereby light and air towards the house of the petitioner is being obstructed, has not been proved on record by leading any cogent evidence. No spot map has been placed on record regarding the alleged unauthorized construction to demonstrate the same. The testimony of the witnesses produced by the petitioner has correctly been found to be unreliable.

10. Other than the aforesaid, dismissal of the earlier execution petition on 17.12.2011, filed for similar relief (mandatory injunction) bars the present/subsequent execution petition on the principle of res-judicata in terms of explanation (vii) of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

11. Moreover the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of t