Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

of the Judgment Debtor that the Ld. Executing Court failed to consider the objections in respect of the limitation in respect of the enforcement of the mandatory injunction. It is further stated that the prescribed period of execution was three years and a decree was passed on 22.08.2005 and the Execution Petition was filed around 10.02.2016 and therefore the execution petition was clearly barred by the limitation. It is further stated that the execution application was filed on behalf attorney of Decree Holders and the authority of the attorney were challenged but the same was not decided by the Ld. Executing Court. It is further stated that the area of suit which forms the basis of the suit property fell within the area where constructed was prohibited under the AMASR Act and no such order would have been passed or implemented which had the effect of violating any provision of law. It is further stated that the Decree Holder failed to disclose before the Ld. Executing Court that the Decree Holder had sold the property, which was subject matter in the year 2011 and therefore, before the filing of the Execution Petition, the Decree Holder has no right, title rights or interest in the property and therefore the execution petition was not maintainable and not executable.

2. The appellant is aggrieved on the ground that the Ld. Executing Court did not take any objections raised by Appellant/Judgment Debtor into account and the entire executing proceedings therefore stood vitiated. It is the grievance of the Appellant that under Section 20(a) of the AMASR Act, no construction or erection of structure was permitted within 100 meter of monument protected under AMASR Act and that the decree dated 28.02.2005 only gave relief to the Decree Holders to the extent of removal of existing RCA no. 76/17 Page no. 3 of 7 UOI Vs. Suresh Chand Gupta and Anr.

3. Despite giving opportunities to the Respondent no reply was filed on behalf of the Respondents and arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.

4. During arguments, it was argued on behalf of Appellant that the Bailiff was appointed by Ld. Executing court only for removing the wall of fence, however, as per the report of the Bailiff, the Bailiff had given the entire possession of the suit property to the Decree Holder, which was beyond the Decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is also argued that the fencing of the suit property by the Decree Holder was in a violation of Section 20 (a) of AMASR Act.