Telangana High Court
Smt. Burra Jyothi vs Smt. Manda Aruna on 10 April, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.780 OF 2026
DATE: 10.04.2026
Between:
Burra Jyothi
...Petitioner
AND
Manda Aruna and others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in E.P. No. 4 of 2023 in O.S. No. 166 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District.
2. Heard Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as plaintiff, had instituted O.S. No. 166 of 2004 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 2 to 5 from interfering 2 with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that an earlier execution petition in E.P. No. 4 of 2012 was filed but came to be dismissed on 12.07.2022. Owing to continued interference by the judgment debtors, the petitioner filed the present E.P. No. 4 of 2023 seeking enforcement of the decree by way of attachment of the immovable properties of judgment debtor Nos. 1 to 3.
3.2. It is contended that the executing Court erroneously dismissed the execution petition by applying Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, on the premise that the limitation period for execution of a decree is twelve years. Learned counsel submits that such interpretation is legally untenable, inasmuch as the proviso to Article 136 clearly excludes decrees granting perpetual injunction from the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, it is argued that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory scheme and liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the petition, submits that execution was sought against respondent No. 3, who was not a party to the original suit proceedings. However, he fairly concedes that, in law, no limitation period is prescribed for the 3 enforcement of a decree of perpetual injunction and leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court.
5. I have carefully perused the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
6. The record reveals that the petitioner, being the decree holder, seeks enforcement of a decree dated 11.04.2005 granting perpetual injunction.
7. The executing Court, while dismissing the petition, relied upon Article 136 of the Limitation Act and the decisions in Damodharan Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 300 and Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali, (1998) 3 SCC 148, to hold that dismissal of an earlier execution petition does not extend the period of limitation. However, such reliance appears to be misplaced in the present factual and legal context.
8. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of twelve years for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction), commencing from the date when the decree becomes enforceable. Crucially, the proviso to Article 136 carves out an exception by stipulating that there shall be no limitation for the enforcement of a decree granting a perpetual injunction. 4
9. In light of the above statutory position, it is well-settled that a decree of perpetual injunction creates a continuing obligation, and its breach gives rise to a recurring cause of action. Consequently, the decree holder is entitled to seek enforcement at any point of time so long as the violation persists. Judicial pronouncements have consistently recognized this distinction between executable money decrees and decrees for injunction, particularly perpetual injunctions, which are not circumscribed by limitation under Article 136.
10. In the present case, the petitioner seeks enforcement of a decree of perpetual injunction. Therefore, the executing Court committed a manifest error in applying the limitation period prescribed under Article 136 without adverting to its proviso. The impugned order, thus, suffers from a patent misapplication of law and is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.01.2026 in E.P. No. 4 of 2023 is set aside. The executing Court is directed to restore the execution petition and consider the same on merits, strictly in accordance with law, including examining the maintainability against the concerned judgment debtors.
12. Additionally, considering that the execution petition pertains to the year 2023, the executing Court is further directed to dispose of the same expeditiously as possible.
5
13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.04.2026 mmr