JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioner in the present writ application has sought to challenge the Order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in C.R. No.36/11 of 1997 allowing the said revision and reversing the order dated 23.12.1996 passed in M.J.C. and No.30/1996 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of Execu¬tion Proceeding No.3 of 1994 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nayagarh who had allowed the objection of the peti¬tioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and hold that the decree passed in O.S. No.24 of 77, was in executable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order passed by the Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Nayagarh on the following grounds :

(A) That the Execution Case is barred by limitation as envisaged under Article 136 of the Limitation Act.

(B) That the decree sought to be executed being purely for injunction, the relief of recovery of possession is beyond the scope of the executing Court.

(C) That the decree for permanent injunction is to be executed in the manner contemplated under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. and delivery of possession cannot be given as provided under Order 21 R