SESU NAIKA Vs. PAIVALIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in E.P. 108/2003 in O.S. 632/1992 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasargode is the revision petitioner. The Execution petition was filed praying for an order directing the respondents/judgment debtors to comply with the terms of the compromise decree passed in the suit and in failure to do so, to proceed against them.

(2.) The decree in this case is based on a compromise. The compromise decree directs the respondents/judgment debtors to construct a regular fence within a period of six months and also to construct a sufficient and necessary drainage on the northern side of the road to avoid flow of rain water across the road and to the properties of the revision petitioner. Thus the parties agreed to a future mode of conduct to do a specific act and obtain a decree in those terms, the question posed in this revision petition is as to whether the decree passed in terms of the compromisers a decree for mandatory injunction or is at a simple compromise decree. If the decree is a decree for mandatory injunction, the same shall be executed within a period of three years under Article 135 of the Limitation Act. If the decree in hand is a simple compromise decree, a period of 12 years is available under Article 136 of the Limitation Act for execution. Clauses 5 and 6 of the compromise which forms part of the decree dated 30-10-1999 in A.S.65/1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasargode reads as follows:

(3.) The respondents/judgment debtors in their objection contended interalia that the execution petition is barred by limitation, since the same was filed beyond three years as contemplated under Article 135 of the Limitation Act. The court below accepted the said contention and dismissed the execution petition finding that the execution petition was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Article 135 of the Limitation Act.