The Supreme Court has clarified that when a decree granting a mandatory injunction does not fix a date for performance, the limitation period for execution is three years from the date of the decree.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan considered the issue in a matter arising out of execution proceedings.
Background of the Case
The First Appellate Court granted a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the petitioners by order dated 06.01.2005. However, the decree did not specify any timeline for compliance.
Later, on 12.08.2010, the petitioners filed an execution application before the Executing Court. They sought enforcement of the mandatory injunction portion of the decree.
The Executing Court dismissed the application as time-barred. It held that the petitioners had filed the execution application beyond the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
Legal Position Under Article 135
Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a limitation period of three years for execution of a decree granting a mandatory injunction.
The limitation begins from:
- The date of the decree, or
- The date fixed for performance, if such a date is specified in the decree
Since the decree in the present case did not fix any date for performance, the Executing Court treated the decree date as the starting point.
Proceedings Before the High Court
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their execution application, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition.
The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the findings of the courts below.
The Bench observed:
“As the decree passed by the First Appellate Court did not specify any date for performance, the limitation period would commence from the date of the decree, as was held by the Execution Court.”
The Court further held:
“In such circumstances, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as the Execution Application was limited to enforcement of mandatory injunction part of the decree.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Babu Singh (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Anr.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate; Mr. Manik Kapoor, Advocate; Ms. Srishti Singla, Advocate; Mr. Shrey Kapoor, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vagisha Kochar, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Vivek Jain, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Advocate.
