JADA CHENNAIAH Vs. JADA VENKATA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S No. 188 of 1998 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur against the respondent for the relief of perpetual and mandatory injunction vis-a-vis some items of the suit schedule property, viz; land in Survey No. 605/1. The suit was decreed on 20.3.2001, on contest. The respondent filed A.S. No. 26 of 2001 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet and the appeal was dismissed on 17.9.2002. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 60 of 2007 with a prayer to execute the decree in so far as it relates to the mandatory injunction. The E.P. was opposed by the respondent. Through its order dated 19.9.2009, the Executing Court dismissed the E.P. as barred by limitation. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Sri J. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree is in three parts, namely, perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and costs and the Executing Court was not justified in applying Article 135 though the E.P. was filed for enforcement of mandatory injunction as well as recovery of costs. According to the learned Counsel, Article 135 does not apply to relief of recovery of costs.

(3.) As observed earlier, the suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction, to restrain the respondent and his men from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the pipeline laid across the land. The suit was decreed on 20.3.2001. Apart from granting the reliefs claimed, the trial Court has awarded also costs. The said decree became final with the dismissal of A.S. No. 26 of 2001 on 17.9.2002 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.