With consent, heard finally.

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under

Article 227 of Constitution of India being crestfallen by order dated

29.03.2016 passed by V^th Additional Judge to the Court of I^st Civil

Judge, Class-II, Shivpuri, whereby objection raised by the

respondents/judgment debtors has been upheld and execution

proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the respondents were

dropped.

2.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that Late Laxman Singh Yadav

filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No.218-A/1988) against Shrilal and Smt.

Rajkunwar for permanent injunction and vide judgment dated 10.12.1992

suit was decreed in favour of petitioners (then plaintiffs). As per the

judgment and decree, petitioner Late Laxman Singh was found to be

entitled to take water connection from the disputed land and the then

defendants were injuncted permanently not to interfere in the movement

of plaintiffs.

3.

It appears that said judgment and decree was not complied by the

respondents in letter and spirit prima-facie. Therefore, execution

3

proceedings were drawn by the legal representatives of Late Laxman

Singh against the legal representatives of late defendants on 26.03.2013.

4.

An objection was raised by the respondents/judgment debtors since

original defendants/judgment debtors have expired, therefore, execution

proceedings cannot be proceeded with against the legal representatives of

judgment debtors.

5.

Court below after considering the rival submissions came to the

conclusion that present legal representatives of original defendant were

not party in the original suit and decree of permanent injunction was not

issued against them, therefore, execution proceedings cannot be drawn

against the present legal representatives. Therefore, objections were

sustained and execution proceedings were dismissed. Therefore, this

petition has been preferred.

6.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners referred The

Schedule and Article 136 of the Limitation Act and its proviso to bring

home the fact that an application for the enforcement or execution of a

decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period

of limitation. Therefore, enforcement of decree of permanent injunction

passed on 10.12.1992 can be made in 2013. It is further submitted that

Section 50 read with Section 146 of C.P.C. facilitates the execution of

decree through legal representatives of judgment debtors. According to

him after the death of judgment debtors, his legal representatives can be

impleaded in his place as judgment debtors and execution proceedings

can be carried out till the decree is satisfied.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and

supported the impugned order. According to him looking to the nature of

4

decree, it is impracticable to saddle the liability over the legal

representatives of original judgment debtors. According to him, from the

pleadings as contained in execution application it has nowhere mentioned

that what was the occasion for them to file the application after 20 years

and according to him, decree has already been fully satisfied before

initiation of execution. Therefore, once decree has been satisfied, then it

does not give any recurring cause of action for the decree holders to

initiate execution proceedings after the death of judgment debtors.

8.

Heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents

appended thereto.

9.

This is the case where petitioners as decree holders are asserting

their rights for enforcement of judgment and decree dated 10.12.1992

passed by the trial Court.

10.

So far as point of limitation for execution of decree of permanent

injunction is concerned, same is taken care of by Article 136 of (The

Schedule) Limitation Act, 1963. Article 136 of (The Schedule) of the

Limitation Act reads as under :-

Description of application Period of limitation

Time from which period

begins to run

136. For the execution of

any decree (other than a

decree

granting