M A RAJA Vs. S VEDHANTHAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises in execution in O. S. No. 422 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Mettur.

(2.) FIRST respondent herein has obtained a decree, which reads thus, " (i) That the defendants and their men be and are, hereby permanently restrained by a permanent injunction from a ny manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. (ii) that the defendants be and are hereby directed by a mandatory injunction to demolish and remove the building constructed by them in the suit property in S. No. 2/a/2 obstructing the entrance marked as'a'in ex. C2 Commis-sioner'splan attached herewith to the building of the plaintiff within aperiod of 3 months from this date. (iii) that in default of such removal by the defendant within 3 months stated in decree in plan is at liberty to take appropriate steps for such removal" The decree is dated 30. 8. 1981. Decree holder filede. P. 200 of 1986 to execute the decree, by appointment of Commissioner and to remove obstruction. Petitioner took a contention that the decree is one for mandatory Injunction and since the execution petition was filed beyond three years. It is barred by time. The Objection was overruled by executing Court.

(3.) BY setting aside the order, appellant is not going to get any relief unless main order in execution is also challenged. That is why petitioner has filed another revision petition against the application with an application to condone the delay. Main reason that is stated in the revision is pendency of C. M. A. No. 59 of 1999 before lower appellate Court. Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, pendency of a proceeding before a court having no jurisdiction is sufficient cause for condoning delay.