The main legal point established is that the decree for mandatory injunction is subject to a three-year limitation period under Article 135 of the Limitation Act and is separable from other parts of the decree.

1. The decree holders/plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1528/90 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambatur, unable to succeed in their attempt, to execute the mandatory injunction order, have come to this court, as revision petitioners.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs had filed a suit originally, in the Court of District Munsif at Poonamallee, for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against four defendants, arraying the respondents herein as the 2nd and 4th defendants. It appears the defendants had not contested the case, resulting a decree on 18.6.1992, as prayed for. Till the year 1997, though the plaintiffs had obtained a decree in the year 1992, they had not taken out any execution proceedings, for enforcing the order of mandatory injunction. In the meantime, the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur was conferred with Munsif Power and therefore, it appears the decree was trasmitted, for execution before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

3. The decree holders had filed E.P. No. 9/97 under Order 21 Rule 11(a) as well as under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. against the 4th defendant/second respondent herein for the removal of illegal encroachment, made in the suit property as per Clause (3) of the decree. On 4.2.1997, though the counsel appeared for the fourth defendant, it seems no counter has been filed. In this view of the matter, the learned District Munsif, as per the order dated 28.4.1998 directed the 4th respondent to remove the illegal encroachment in the suit property, in my considered opinion, erroneously, forgetting the fact that there is already an order directing the 4th defendant/2nd respondent, to remove the illegal encroachment, as per clause (3) of the decree.

4. The execution proceedings was initiated only to enforce clause (3) of the decree and therefore, the Court ought to have taken steps, for the removal of the encroachment by the 4th defendant Municipality. Instead of taking appropriate steps by the court itself or by the inducement of the decree holders, a peculiar order was passed once again, directing the 4th defendant, to remove the illegal encroachment. It seems, thereafter, nothing had taken place and it is not known what had happened to the order dated 28.4.1998. The decree holders at least ought to have taken steps, on the failure of the 4th defendant, to remove the encroachment, through the process of court by paying batta, etc. The typed copy of the E.P. filed in the typeset does not disclose what had happened in the execution proceedings after 28.4.1998.

5. The decree holders once again filed E.P. No. 36/98 under Order XXI Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. against the 4th defendant/2nd respondent for contempt on 20.7.1998. In that execution proceedings, the other judgment debtors viz., defendants 1 to 3 were not impleaded as parties. It seems, defendants

1 to 3 are also in occupation of the premises. But, no decree was obtained against them, for their removal directly, directing them to vacate the premises, in order to comply with the decree for declaration. Knowing the fact that the defendants are also in occupation of the premises, the plaintiffs had obtained the relief of mandatory injunction only against the 4th defendant. When the execution petition No. 36/98 is pending, the party who is going to be affected, in the event of the execution of the decree, the second defendant/first respondent herein had filed a memo of objection before the Court, stating that E.P. for execution of mandatory injunction originally filed itself is not maintainable and therefore, the subsequent E.P., which sought to enforce the order passed in E.P. No. 9/97 is not maintainable, since the execution petition for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation, because of the fact E.P. was not filed within three years from the date of the decree, as contemplated under Section 135 of the Limitation Act.

6. The learned District Munsif, calling for objection from the d