The captioned writ petition is filed by the judgment

debtors questioning the order of the Executing Court, wherein

the Executing Court has overruled the objections filed by the

petitioners and has proceeded to hold an enquiry as to

3

whether there is willful disobedience. It is this order which is

under challenge.

2.

The respondent/decree holder filed a bare suit for

injunction in O.S.No.176/1994 against the father of the

petitioners herein namely Shankarappa Kalluguddi who was

injuncted by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent/decree

holder over the suit schedule property. The present execution

petition is filed alleging that the judgment debtors have

disobeyed the decree passed in O.S.No.176/1994. Therefore,

the present execution petition is filed seeking detention of

judgment debtors and consequently, attach the property of

the judgment debtors.

3.

On receipt of notice by the Executing Court, the

present petitioners/judgment debtors have tendered their

detailed objections. In the objections, the present petitioners

have denied the allegation relating to disobedience of decree

4

passed in O.S.No.176/1994. A specific contention is taken in

the objection that the decree for permanent injunction cannot

be executed against legal representatives of the original

defendant. The petitioners claim that they were not at all

aware of the decree passed in O.S.No.176/1994. A specific

defence is also set up that they were not party to the earlier

suit. Therefore, by filing detailed objections, petitioners have

sought dismissal of the execution petition as not maintainable.

4.

The Executing Court having heard the rival

contentions has overruled the objections in regard to

maintainability of the execution petition. Therefore, by

referring to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC, the

Executing Court was of the view that it is for the

respondent/decree holder to prove while leading cogent and

clinching evidence and prove that there is disobedience of the

decree by the judgment debtors. It is in this background, the

Executing Court was of the view that the allegations have to

be substantiated by the decree holder and therefore, has

5

proceeded to hold an enquiry. It is this order which is under

challenge.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the grounds

urged in the writ petition. I have also given my anxious

consideration to the order under challenge.

6.

The main grounds urged in the writ petition is in

two folds. Firstly, a decree for perpetual injunction would not

bind the legal representatives of the defendant who has

suffered a decree and the second ground of objection is that

the present execution petition is filed after 18 years and

therefore, the decree cannot be enforced by invoking the

provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC.

7.

Insofar as first contention is concerned, this Court

is not inclined to accede to the contentions canvassed in the

writ petition. The petitioners are seeking dismissal of the

execution petition on the premise that they were not party to

6

the proceedings in the earlier suit. Their contention is that the

decree for perpetual injunction is against their father and

therefore, the decree holder cannot allege disobedience and

cannot maintain an execution petition against the legal

representatives of the original defendant who has suffered a

decree. There is already decree operating against the vendors

of petitioners herein. If there is a violation at the instance of

the legal representatives of sole defendant who has suffered a

decree, this Court is of the view that the execution petition is

very much maintainable.

8.

The second point that needs to be examined by this

Court is as to whether the contention of the petitioners that

execution petition is barred by limitation can be entertained.

The decree passed in O.S.No.176/1994 is one for permanent

injunction. The wor