ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

28.02.2023 in E.P.No.390 of 2021 in O.S.No.1963 of 2010 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein had filed an application in E.P.No.390 of 2021 before the trial Court under Order XXI rule 34 and 35 of C.P.C, for execution of the sale deed in terms of decree against respondent No.1/J.Dr.1 and recovery of possession against Judgment debtors No.1 to 7 and they were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule land to the decree holder by demolishing the structures, but it was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court erred in taking the view that article 135 of the Limitation Act applies to the instant situation and the time period for filing the Execution Petition is three years from the date of decree as it was a mandatory injunction. The main relief sought for in the suit was to declare the sale deeds as null and void and the second relief was the mandatory injunction directing the respondent No.1 society to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and also to give direction to respondents No.1 to 7 to deliver vacant possession. The trial Court considering the fact that E.P was filed in the year 2021 i.e., 7 years after the decree, held that it is not maintainable. In fact, for the present case, Article 136 of the Limitation Act applies, in which limitation period for filing the E.P is 12 years. The suit falls within Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and it empowers the Court to declare the status or right of a person having any legal character or any right as to any property. The petitioner sought for declaring his right in respect of the suit schedule property and for execution of a sale deed, as such Article 136 of the Limitation Act is applicable but not Article 135. He further contended that issuing a mandatory injunction falls under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and the scope of the same is to remove the breach of an obligation and to compel the performance of certain acts, but the suit herein is not filed merely for injunction. It was also held that mere description of the petitioner will not decide the nature of the suit and thus requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nagubandi Pullaiah and others, in which it was held as follows:

“It is clear that when the reliefs sought are inseparable and have two distinct limitations, the limitation prescribed for larger relief is the foundation to decide whether the suit or execution petition is within time or not. Merely because one relief sought is barred by limitation. If such contention is accepted, the main relief granted would be unexecutable even though it is within limitation for the simple reason that the ancillary relief which is granted in aid of main relief is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the Court below has committed error in dismissing the execution petition as barred by limitation. Such finding requires interference.”

In view of the above citation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that merely because one relief is barred by limitation, the other larger relief cannot be barred by limitation. He stated that the main relief sought by him is to declare the sale deed as null and void and law provides 12 years of limitation period for filing Execution Petition and the second relief is the mandatory injunction, which has three years of limitation. The trial Court erroneously arrived to the conclusion that Execution Petition has to be filed within three years for mandatory injunction and not considered the larger relief of declaration.

5. Though said fact was raised before the trial Co