Read Order: Bhagwan Chand (Died) through his legal heir v. Chaman Lal (Died) through his legal heirs and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 10, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the trial Court has decreed the suit for grant of permanent injunction, may it be in the form of a direction, the nature of the decree passed by the Court will remain the same. 

Also, the Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal opined, “Furthermore, as per Article 136 of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963, to implement a decree for perpetual injunction, no limitation has been provided.”

In this case, the Court was approached with a revision petition by a judgment debtor who  failed to implement the judgment and decree passed against him. 

Before the Court, it was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the decree so passed by the Trial Court was in the nature of mandatory injunction, therefore, the limitation for filing the execution petition was three years. 

Per contra, the counsel representing the decree holders submitted that the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, opened two doors, two ventilators and a drain, which forced the trial Court to mould the relief.

Considering the above submissions and the fact sheet of the case, the Court was of the opinion that once the trial Court decreed the suit for grant of permanent injunction, may it be in the form of a direction, the nature of the decree passed by the Court will remain the same. 

These aspects have already been considered, in detail, by both the Courts below, the Court held while also asserting that as per Article 136 of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963, to implement a decree for perpetual injunction, no limitation is provided. 

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment