ORDER :

The order of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad, in E.P. No.2 of 2012, dated 14.12.2016 is under challenge.

2. Decree-holder to the execution petition has challenged the impugned order.

3. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and gave anxious consideration to the contents of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel.

4. In spite of service of notice upon the respondents 2 and 3, they failed to make their appearance and submit.

5. The execution petition, which stood numbered as E.P. No.2 of 2012, was moved by the decree-holder under order XXI Rule 11 CPC seeking the Court for executing the decree that was passed in O.S. No.63 of 1999 and thereby to pull down the structures present in the suit schedule property. The judgment debtors resisted the execution petition mainly on the ground that the said execution petition (EP) is barred by limitation. Considering the stand taken by the judgment debtors, coming to a conclusion that the E.P. is barred by limitation, the executing Court dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, decree-holder approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal.

6. Strenuously arguing that the dismissal of E.P. No.2 of 2012 is unsustainable under law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, an execution petition can be filed for executing a decree finally within its purview within a period of 12 years but the executing Court under the impression that for enforcement of a bare decree of mandatory injunction, the period of limitation is only 3 years and therefore, the E.P. is not within the period of limitation, dismissed the E.P. and if the period of limitation is taken as 12 years, the order would have been otherwise and therefore, the said order of the executing Court is challenged.

7. The learned counsel took the Court to the provisions contained in Articles 135 and 136 of the Limitation Act and submitted at length with regard to the distinction between those two Articles.

8. As per the material available on record, it is clear that the revision petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration of title, for possession and for mandatory injunction. The relief of mandatory injunction was sought for to direct the defendants to the suit to pull down the hut and other structures, which are present in the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit on 04.05.2001. The reliefs sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff were granted in toto. The defendants were directed to pull down the structures, which were constructed by them in the suit land within two months from the date of judgment. Therefore, the defendants ought to have removed those structures by 05.07.2001. On the ground that those structures were not removed, the plaintiff filed the execution petition on 04.05.2012. Observing that the execution petition is filed after 11 years and thereby it is barred by limitation, the Court dismissed the execution petition.

9. Thus, the point that arises for consideration is

whether the execution petition (EP), which was filed on 04.05.2012 for execution of the decree dated 04.05.2001 is within the period of limitation.

10. Article 135 of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation as 3 years for enforcement of a decree granting mandatory injunction. The period of 3 years begins to run from the date of decree or when a date is fixed for performance, such date.

11. Coming to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, it prescribes 12 years for execution of any decree or order of civil Court other than the decree granting mandatory injunction, which is covered under Article 135. However, it is provided that for an application for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction, the said period does not apply.

12. With an observ