ORDER :

This Revision is filed against the order dated 07.11.2022 in E.P.No. 5 of 2015 in O.S.No. 134 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Huzurabad.

2. The revision petitioner before this Court is the decree holder. It is their case that after passing the decree in a suit for injunction against the judgment debtors restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of an extent of Acs.3.03 guntas, the judgment-debtors deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the decree by interfering with the possession of the decree-holder by laying the foundation stone on 12.01.2015 for installation of Swamy Vivekananda Statue in the temple premises violating vaastu. The temple Executive Officer also addressed the letter dated 22.12.2014 to the judgment debtor No.1 requesting not to disobey the orders of the Court. Despite such request, the judgment-debtors intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the decree. It is stated that the decree-holder was put to great inconvenience and loss to the property of the temple for which judgment debtors are liable to be put in civil prison under Order 21 Rule 32(1) C.P.C.

3. On behalf of the judgment debtors, a detailed counter-affidavit was filed that decree in the suit is an ex parte decree passed against the Nagar Panchayat, Jammikunta in a suit filed by the hereditary trustee and basing on such decree, filed the petition after limitation. It is stated that since the road surrounding the temple is being utilised and used by the general public and since there is connectivity of roads to various houses and colonies, as a part of development of colonies and towns, the judgment debtors constructed drainages and laid cement roads in the entire town connecting to roads besides the temple. The decree holder and his family members got partitioned the remaining land around the temple and making the same into plots and sold to various persons mentioning 50’ panchayat road and on physical verification of the records, the officer accorded permission to the purchasers and all of them constructed houses by using the alleged road and therefore, the alleged interference does not arise and further, as it is barred by limitation, the E.P. is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Court below having considered the case of the judgment-debtors as well as the decree holder referring to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes limitation for execution of decree as 12 years and as the decree was passed on 24.10.1989, the decree- holder should have filed the petition for execution of decree on or before 24.10.1991 and as petition came to be filed on 30.12.2014 which is beyond the period of limitation in terms of Article 136 of the Act, the Petition is clearly barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also observed that the decree holder has tried to take shelter under Section 143 of the AP. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and tried to submit that the law of limitation has no application. However, the Court below has observed that in the present situation the question is not about the property of the endowment but the question herein is executability of the decree and same comes under the purview of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the decree-holder cannot be permitted to take shelter under Section 143 of the Act. The Court below finally dismissed the petition stating that the execution petition is hit by law of limitation.

5. On 22.12.2022 this Court has ordered notice before admission and directed the petitioner to take personal notice. Learned counsel has taken out notice to Respondents 1 to 5 and filed proof of service. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter basing on the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the law of limitation will not