Limitation To Execute Mandatory Injunction 3 Years From Decree Date If No Performance Date Fixed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when a decree for a mandatory injunction does not specify a date for performance, the limitation period for enforcement is three years from the date of the decree.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan heard the case where a mandatory injunction was issued in favour of the petitioners by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 06.01.2005; however, the order doesn't stipulate the date of enforcement of the mandatory injunction.

The petitioners approached the Executing Court on 12.08.2010 seeking implementation of the mandatory injunction part of the decree, which resulted in dismissal of their execution application. The Executing Court dismissed their application to be time barred, as it was filed beyond the limitation period of three years, stipulated under Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

As per Article 135 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period provided therein is three years commencing from the date of the decree or, where a date is fixed for performance, such date.

Aggrieved by the executing court's decision, the petitioners moved a revision petition before the High Court, which also resulted in dismissal, prompting them to move to the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the Court observed that since no date was fixed for performance of the mandatory injunction decree, no error was committed on the part of the executing court to dismiss the petitioner's execution application as time-barred.

“As the decree passed by the First Appellate Court did not specify any date for performance, the limitation period would commence from the date of the decree, as was held by the Execution Court.”, the court observed.

“In such circumstances, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as the Execution Application was limited to enforcement of mandatory injunction part of the decree.”, the court held.

The petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: BABU SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ANR. VERSUS JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 175

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Srishti Singla, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, A.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.