Ex.P.No.75/2007 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Ex.P.No.75/2007 % Date of Decision: 28.04.2009 Smt.Surjeet Kaur and other …. Decree Holders Through Mr.M.S. Mishra, Advocate Versus Shri Krishan Bhandari …. Judgment Debtor Through Mr.P.K. Rawal and Mr.Ajay Bahl, Advocates CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL) * This is a petition for execution of compromise decree passed in Suit No.436 of 1986. The plaintiff had filed the suit for rendition of account, injunction and recovery of money which was settled between the plaintiff, Shri Krishan Bhandari and M/s.Saggu Engineering Works and others and an application under Order XXIII rule 3 dated 27th August, 1987 was filed. Under the settlement, the plaintiff was permitted to be in possession of the areas which was in his exclusive possession and it was agreed that the plaintiff/decree holder shall be free to carry on business. The plaintiff was, however, liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- Ex.P.No.75/2007 Page 2 of 3 per month from 1st August, 1987 to the defendant for having possession of the premises and consequent thereto all the previous claims between the parties were settled and concluded. A writ petition being CWP No.1086/1986 was also pending between the parties where defendants were a party and the defendants had consented to continuation of electricity connection already granted by Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking in the name of plaintiff. The parties had also agreed that the defendants will not cause any obstruction or objection to carry on business and that the defendants will give water supply free of any obstruction and continue to permit the plaintiff and his employees and staff to use common toilet etc. without any hindrance. The plaintiff had also agreed to pay agreed charges by 7th of each month in advance and after the agreed period of two-and-a-half years, the plaintiff had agreed to vacate the premises under his possession. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the decree was passed on 7th September, 2007 seeking issuance of warrants of possession of the premises measuring 1495 sq.ft. on ground floor of property bearing No.B-75, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Delhi. The limitation for filing the execution petition for a decree under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1996 is 12 years from the date decree or order becomes enforceable. Under the decree dated 7th September, 1987, the defendants became entitled for recovery of possession after Ex.P.No.75/2007 Page 3 of 3 two years and six months from 1st November, 1986. The said period of two years and six months expired on 30th April, 1989. Apparently, the decree became executable on 30th April, 1989 and its execution sought on 27th January, 2007 is barred by time. In the circumstances, the decree holder is not entitled to maintain the execution petition being barred by time. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. April 28, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘Dev’