IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5843 of 2009 Between: Pothamsetti Sriramulu. … Petitioner And Chappidi Surya Chandravathi and four others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5843 OF 2009 ORDER:- This revision by the 1st Judgment Debtor is directed against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramchandrapuram, East Godavari District in ordering E.P.No.5 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 1996, dated 31.10.2009. 1st to 3rd Respondents/decree holders, who obtained a decree for mandatory injunction after removing the obstructions and restoring the pathway, filed the above E.P. for execution. The only objection raised by the petitioner/1st judgment debtor is that he constructed bathrooms and latrines long back and they being the old age people, will suffer loss if the same were demolished and the way existing is sufficient for the decree holders to use and there is no necessity to execute the decree and the decree holders are not entitled to remove the boundary fencing, by way of mandatory injunction, without verifying their existence with reference to the measurements and the decree cannot be executed. A contention was raised that the E.P. was filed beyond the period of limitation and the same has to be filed within three years from the date of decree for a mandatory injunction. Since the E.P. is filed within three years on dismissal of first and second appeals, the trial court rightly rejected the contention holding that the court cannot go beyond the decree, as the claim of the 1st judgment debtor that there is sufficient passage for the decree holder, has already been rejected by decreeing the suit, basing upon the Commissioner’s report. The contention of the 2nd Judgment Debtor that without first executing the decree against the first judgment debtor, the decree cannot be executed against him, was also rejected. The contention of the petitioner/1st judgment debtor was rightly rejected on the ground that against the decree passed by the trial court, A.S.No.47 of 2000 was preferred by the respondents/defendants and on dismissal of the appeal by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, the petitioner/1st judgment debtor preferred S.A.No.856 of 2005 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 19.12.2009. On dismissal of the appeal, since the 1st judgment debtor has not taken steps to comply the terms of the decree, the E.P. is filed for execution within time from the date of the dismissal of the second appeal, as the decree by the trial court will merge with the same. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the E.P. is filed beyond the period of three years, do not merit consideration. Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes three years limitation, for enforcement of the decree granting mandatory injunction, where the date of the decree or where a date is fixed for performance of such date. Once the appeal is preferred against the decree passed by the lower court, the same is capable of execution only on dismissal of the appeal but not otherwise. In view of the same, no illegality is committed by the trial court in ordering the E.P., warranting interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 22nd January 2010 LMV