Mandate for execution of injunction decrees is limited by specific timeframes, necessitating cogent evidence for validity.

Order:

Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the order dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Executing Court Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.2 Mandi (H.P.) in Execution Petition No.8/99/25-X of 2006 whereby learned Executing Court dismissed execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 .

Brief facts of the case:

2. Deceased Kishori Lal decree holder filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC pleaded therein that C.S. No.142/1986 title Kishori Lal Vs. Hem Chand was decided on dated 7.5.1987 and ex-parte decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against judgment debtor restraining judgment debtor from opening any window or door facing towards the land of decree holder. In addition decree of mandatory injunction was also passed in favour of decree holder and judgment debtor was directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove any window or door and close it so far it faces the land of decree holder. Execution petition filed on 7.5.1999. Before filing execution peti tion original judgment debtor namely Hem Chand died and execution petition filed against sons of deceased JD and against widow of deceased JD.

3. Per contra response filed on behalf of sons of JD and widow of JD pleaded therein that present execution petition is not maintainable and present execution petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that ex-parte decree passed in the year 1987 and original judgment debtor namely Hem Chand died in the year 1989-1990. It is further pleaded that Harish, Vinod and Shayamu sons of Hem Chand were minors and Smt. Daya Devi widow of Hem Chand is an illiterate woman and they have no knowledge about the ex-parte decree passed by Civil Court. It is further pleaded that sons and widow of deceased JD have not constructed any new window or door facing towards land of decree holder after passing decree by Civil Court. Prayer for dismissal of execution petition sought.

4. Learned executing Court framed following issues on dated 02.09.2013:

(1) Whether the DH is entitled for execution of decree against the JDs as prayed for? .OPDH.

(2) Whether the execution petition is not maintainable as alleged?..OPJDs.

(3) Whether the execution petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? ..OPJDs.

(4) Whether the execution petition is time barred? ..OPJDs.

(5) Relief.

5. Learned executing Court decided issues No.1 & 3 in negative and learned executing Court decided issues No.2 & 4 in affirmative. Learned executing Court dismissed the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Decree holder namely Kishori Lal died on 4.10.2007 and his LRs Harsh and others filed present revision petition on 28.11.2007 before H.P. High Court.

6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists and Court also perused the entire record carefully.

7. Following points arise for determination:

1) Whether civil revision petition filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?

2) Relief.

Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons:

8. AW-1 Sh. Kishori Lal has stated that he is owner of khasra No.880 and 881 of immovable property situated in Samkhetar. He has stated that in the year 1986 his neighbour Hem Chand deceased JD opened his windows and doors towards his land. He has stated that he requested deceased JD not to open windows and doors towards his land but he did not accept his request and thereafter he filed civil suit and same was decreed. He has stated that thereafter he filed ex