IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :27.08.2025 PARAMJIT SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS PURAN SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his objections vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018, Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, had allowed the counter-claim preferred by defendants in the suit preferred by Plaintiff. Learned Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Hoshiarpur had earlier dismissed the suit of plaintiff-petitioner for non prosecution.

2. Initially a suit for declaration was preferred by petitioner J.D., claiming himself to be owner to the extent of 1/4^th share. Notice of suit was duly served upon the defendant. The defendant appeared, filed their written statement, and preferred a counter-claim seeking decree for mandatory injunction. However, the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in default, whereas the counter- claim continued and was decreed in favour of the decree holder-defendant vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner/JD that during the pendency of the suit, the matter was compromised between the plaintiff and the defendant and it was decided that none of them shall pursue their respective claims and, therefore, J.D. did not pursue his case and hence suit was dismissed in default. However, respondent/decree holder allegedly failed to fulfil their promise and continued with their counter-claim and cleverly got ex-parte judgment and decree in their favour.

4. That thereafter, the respondent-decree, after a lapse of 6½ years, preferred an execution petition before Executing Court. On receipt of summons from the Executing Court, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor was surprised and had had approached the Court by way of filing his objections. It is claim of the petitioner that his objections to the execution petition have been wrongly rejected. The main objection taken by the judgment debtor/petitioner was that the execution petition, having been filed after 6 ½ years, is barred by limitation as per Article 135 of Limitation Act. The limitation period to execute a decree of mandatory injunction is 3 years and, therefore, present execution petition preferred by the decree holder is hopelessly time-barred. On the other hand, the decree holder claimed that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Article 135 of the Limitation Act has no applicability and the limitation to file the execution petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case is governed by the provisions of Article 136 of Limitation Act. Hence, the execution petition is within limitation. 5. Perusal of the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2018, whereby the counter-claim of the defendant-respondent was allowed, goes to show that plaintiff had sought declaration that he is the owner in possession of one-fourth share in the suit property whereas defendant-respondent had claimed himself to be owner of 14 marlas of the property and had claimed to have raised construction over it. It was the case of defendant that defendant had given property to the plaintiff, being father of plaintiff, however, the plaintiff had forged the documents and filed the suit with wrong site plan. Defendant also claimed to have terminated license granted in favour of the plaintiff vide registered notice dated 11.08.2015 and claimed that after termination of the license, plaintiff was in unauthorized possession and bound to surrender vacant possession of the property. The said counter-claim preferred by defendant was duly decreed by the Court.

6. There is no dispute that learned Court of first instance had found defendant to be owner of the suit property and held that plaintiff/judgment debtor held property as license