The acknowledgment of the claim by the judgment-debtor and the fresh period of limitation starting from the date of dismissal of the previous execution influenced the court's decision on the application for execution being within limitation.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This petition on behalf of the judgment-debtor is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 15th May, 1979, whereby the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtors was dismissed.

2. Earlier vide this Courts order dated 24th July, 1984 the delay in filing this petition was condoned.

3. Decree for mandatory injunction was passed on 26th April, 1967. Appeal filed on behalf of the defendants-judgment-debtors against the said decree was dismissed on 31st January, 1970. First Application for execution was filed on Ist March, 1972 which was dismissed on 7th August, 1974 in default when none of the parties was present. The present application for execution was filed on 31st January, 1976. On 29th September, 1978 one of the judgment debtors shrimati Bhagwati widow of Banwari Lal made a statement that they will demolish the constructed portion on the site in dispute, as per decree dated 26th April, 1967 within one month. After that they will not object to the removal of the said construction. Later on, objection petition was filed, in which it was pleaded that the execution application was barred by time. The executing Court came to the conclusion that on 29th September, 1978 Bhagwati had admitted the claim of the decree-holder and the acknowledgement would further extend the period of limitation. Moreover, when the previous execution proved to be pending upto 7th August, 1974, fresh period of limitation would start from that date, when it was dismissed in default, as none of the parties was present. Thus the present application filed on 31st January, 1976 was held to be within limitation.

4. The learned counsel for the judgment-debtor contended that since the decree was passed on 26th April, 1967, the period of limitation was three years under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, the application filed on 31st January, 1976 was clearly barred by time. As regards the statement made by Shrimati Bhagwati judgment-debtor on 29th September, 1978 it was submitted that the present petition has been filed by Shrimati Shanti Devi and not by Smt. Bhagwati.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. The decree was passed against Smt. Shanti Devi and her sisters Smt. Bhagwati etc. Admittedly, Bhagwati did not make a statement on 29th September, 1978 admitting that unauthorised construction will be removed as per decree dated 26th April, 1967 within one month and after that they will not raise any objection for its removal. In view of that statement, it could not be successfully contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor petitioner that she was not bound by the same and the application for execution was barred by time. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order justifying any interference on the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC. Consequently, revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Costs assessed at Rs. 500/-, because it is the conduct of the judgment-debtors which has delayed the execution for such a long period.