The judgment established the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Limitation Act to the execution of decrees, particularly in cases involving mandatory injunctions.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE opposite parties obtained a decree with costs against the petitioners in Title Suit No. 35 of 1967 on 11-9-1970 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Panposh to the following effect:-"the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the suit premises and shed are declared. The Defendants are permanently restrained to further construct and they are directed to demolish the alleged construction made by them. It is further ordered that if the defendants do not demolish the construction made by them within a month from this date the plaintiffs be entitled to get it demolished through Court"the opposite parties levied execution on 21-3-1980 in Execution Case No. 3 of 1980 praying therein"demolition of the construction made by the defendants on the suit land and realisation of the costs of the (sic) (suit) and the costs of this execution by attachment and sale of the moveables of the judgment debtors". The petitioners after appearance objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the part of the decree relating to the mandatory injunction cannot be executed after expiry of three years as envisaged in Article 135 of the Limitation Act. After hearing both parties, the executing Court overruled the objection and came to hold that Article 135 was not applicable but, on the other hand, Article 136 of the Limitation Act being applicable to the case, the decree can be executed according to law. This order stands impugned in this Court.

( 2 ) AT the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the part of the decree relating to mandatory injunction being hit by Article 135 of the Limitation Act, the Court below while executing the decree cannot direct demolition of the construction made on the suit land. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that Article 136 of the Limitation Act is applicable and so the decree is executable according to law. The contentions require careful examination.

( 3 ) THE operative part of the decree quoted above gave the following reliefs to the opposite parties: -I) Declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit premises and shed. II) Permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from further construction thereon. III) Direction to the petitioners to demolish the alleged constructions made by them within a month failing which the opposite parties were entitled to get them demolished through Court. So far as the first two reliefs were concerned, they became effective immediately after the decree was passed, which means, the opposite parties have right, title and interest over the suit premises and the shed and further the petitioners stood permanently restrained from making further construction thereon. That is why in column 10 of the execution petition, the opposite parties did not seek for the assistance of the executing Court. But so far as the third relief is concerned, it was contended that it is in the nature of a mandatory injunction. By granting a mandatory injunction, a Court compels performance of any requisite act, for example, the demolition of an unauthorised structure according to S. 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which reads as follows :-"39. Mandatory injunction.- When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may, in its discretion, grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. "in the instant case by granting the third relief the trial Court compelled the petitioners for the performance of certain act, that is, demolition of unauthorised construction. The third relief granted in the decree is, therefore, in the nature of a mandatory injunction as envisaged in S. 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

( 4 ) ART. 135 of the Limitation Act provides a period of three years for the enforcement