( 1. ) THE disgruntled and also undaunted litigant as revision petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17.04.2008 passed in E.P.No.15 of 2007 in Original Suit No.111 of 1995 by the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur.

( 2. ) THE compendium of the case of the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.111 of 1995 on the file of the Court below for the relief of mandatory injunction, wherein an executable decree has been passed in favour of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and directed the defendants therein to execute the same within a period of three months. THE aggrieved defendants as appellants have preferred Appeal Suit No.121 of 2000 on the file of the first appellate Court.

The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed Appeal Suit No.121 of 2000 on 19.01.2004 and thereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No.111 of 1995 and thereafter the revision petitioner (decree holder) as petitioner has filed E.P.No.15 of 2007 on 05.03.2007 and the Court below has dismissed the same as barred by limitation in view of provision of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Against the impugned order passed by the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner /decree holder/plaintiff.

( 3. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has advanced his reiterative argument to the effect that Original Suit No.111 of 1995 has been instituted for the relief of mandatory injunction, wherein an executable decree has been passed on 28.03.2000 and thereby directed the respondents herein (defendants) to execute the same within a period of three months and against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.121 of 2000 has been preferred on the file of the appellate Court and the appellate Court after hearing arguments and also after considering the available evidence on record has dismissed the same on 19.01.2004 and thereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and subsequently the execution petition in question has been filed on 05.03.2007 and since the appellate Court has dismissed Appeal Suit No.121 of 2000 on 19.01.2004, from 19.01.2004 as per the decree passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner /decree holder/plaintiff is having three years three months time so as to execute the decree in question as per the provision of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and further the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have become merged with the Judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court on 19.01.2004 and the Court below without considering the above factual as well as legal premise has erroneously dismissed E.P.No.15 of 2007 and therefore, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with.

( 4. ) AS a riposte to the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the trial Court has passed its Judgment and decree on 28.03.2000, wherein three months time has been granted to the respondents/defendants to execute the decree of mandatory injunction and therefore, the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.111 of 1995 has become executable from 28.06.2000 and the petition in question in E.P.No.15 of 2007 has been filed on 05.03.2007 and no stay has been granted in Appeal Suit No.121 of 2000 and therefore, the petition in question is barred by limitation in view of the provision of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Court below after considering the above factual as well as legal aspects has rightly dismissed E.P.No.15 of 2007 and therefore, the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with.

The substratum of the present case is nothing but Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 a