BIHARI LAL Vs. SUMITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of sub Judge, Jammu dated May 6 -1987 dismissing execution application filed by the petitioner herein being time barred.

(2.) IN a suit filed by Sh. Biharilal petitioner herein against Sh. Nanak Chand, predecessor -in -interest of respondents herein learned sub -Judge, Jammu on November 28 -1977 granted a decree in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff for payment prohibitory injunction restraining Nanak Chand, deceased, husband and father of respondents herein, from using the door opened towards the petitioner and to close the same. Petitioner filed an execution application for enforcing the said order. A preliminary objection was raised, besides other objections, by the respondents herein that the application being time barred was not maintainable. The executing court after hearing both the sides held the application to be time barred and dismissed it.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record before me. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is perpetual decree and as soon as there is any violation of the decree, it gives a cause of action to a decree holder to seek execution of the said decree. It has further been pleaded by him that provision of Art. 182 of Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Act, (for short Act hereafter) has no application to the facts of the present case. In support of his argument he has referred to AIR 1975 Allahbad 11 and AIR 1946 Patna 392. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other band, has contended that the decree was for mandatory injunction and provision of Art. 182 of the Act would apply in such a case. According to him execution petition was filed after expiry of limitation and as such the application was rightly dismissed. He has referred to AIR 1933 Madras 418 in support of his contention.