Execution petitions by legal heirs of decree holders against legal heirs of judgment-debtors are maintainable under Section 50 of CPC, and there is no limitation for filing execution petitions for permanent prohibitory injunction.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common order, three petitions, one being revision petition filed by Manohar Lal impugning order dated 01.12.2018 passed by learned Munsiff, Akhnoor in the execution petition, being No. 03/Execution, the other being writ petition filed by Varinder Dev Singh and others impugning order dated 01.12.2018 passed by Munisiff Akhnoor in execution petition being No. 5/Execution and the third one filed by the petitioner, Shiv Kumar impugning order dated 01.12.2018 passed in execution petition bearing No. 03/Execution, are proposed to be disposed of.

2. It appears that the judgment and decree dated 01.09.1992 was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of Padam Dev Singh, Surya Dev Singh and Varinder Dev Singh in respect of land measuring 40 kanals and 16 marlas, situated at village Gandarwan, Tehsil Akhnoor against the judgment-debtors, the predecessor-in-interest of Manohar Lal and Shiv Kumar. Another judgment and decree dated 27.02.1991 was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of Manohar Lal and Shiv Kumar in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 1 marlas in Khasra No. 4262/592, 31 kanals 08 marlas in Khasra 4261/592, 4 kanal 6 marlas in Khasra No. 593 and 6 kanals and 2 marlas in Khara No. 599 situated at village Gandarwan, Tehsil Akhnoor against judgment-debtors, the predecessor-in-interest of Padam Dev Singh, Surya Dev Singh and Varinder Dev Singh.

3. It appears that somewhere in the year 2017/2018, the legal heirs of decree holders approached the executing court i.e. Munsiff, Akhnoor by way of execution petitions against the legal heirs of judgment-debtors, alleging therein that the judgment-debtors are resisting the execution of the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction granted by the civil court in their favour. The learned executing court after hearing the parties in both the execution petitions, passed identical orders on 01.12.2018, thereby allowing the execution petitions. These orders are under challenge in these three petitions.

4. Vide the impugned orders, the learned executing court has directed the Nazir to execute the decrees in accordance with the judgments and it has been provided that if it is deemed proper by the Nazir, he can take assistance of concerned revenue officials, who shall go on spot to ascertain whether there is any encroachment and the Nazir has been authorized to take assistance of the Police in order to remove the encroachment over the land in question. It is pertinent to mention here that identical directions have been passed in both the execution petitions.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment-debtors in both the cases have challenged the impugned orders primarily on the ground that legal heirs of the deceased, decree holders cannot maintain execution petitions against legal heirs of judgment-debtors. It has been further submitted that it is not open to the judgment-debtors to seek execution of the decree after a lapse of more than 25 years. The judgment-debtors have further contended that the learned executing court while allowing the execution petition has delegated its powers to the Nazir and without ascertaining as to whether there is any encroachment on spot, directions have been passed for its removal.

6. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel appearing for the decree-holders/respondents in CR No. 49/2019 and OWP No. 266/2019 has submitted that petition for execution filed by the legal heirs of the decree holders is maintainable in view of Section 50 of Code of Civil Procedure. He has further submitted that for execution of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, the cause of action is continuous and no limitation for filing execution petition is provided therefor.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as the question of maintainability of execution petition by the legal heirs of decree holders against the legal heirs of the judgment-debtors is concerned, the same is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the cas