JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The present revision petitioner and one Continental Construction Private Ltd., New Delhi, suffered a decree in a suit for damages and mandatory injunction. The decree was initially passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, which was challenged in appeal. The Additional District Judge, Mandi, who decided the appeal on 6-12-1985 modified the decree passed by the trial Court. Ultimately, the relevant part of the judgment made in the appeal reads as follows : "In view of the statements of the learned Counsel for the parties recorded above, the judgment and decree of the lower court dated : 1-5-1984 is modified to the extent that the Punjab State Electricity Board, appellant shall remove the earth stacked by respondent No. 2 on Barot side of the back of the river so far as it is feasible and upto which extent the vehicle is easily approachable and thereafter place the earth in the land of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 Charaga making it cultivable " The decree was sought to be executed by the decree holder who was the first respondent herein in the first execution petition No. 86 of 1986. The present petitioner filed an objection petition under section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 58, C. P.. C. The main objection raised was that the entire amount decreed by the court had been paid and the remaining part of the decree was not executable. According to the judgment debtor, the land was not easily approachable as no vehicle can pass through the same and that the objector had visited the spot and prepared a spot rnap which showed that there was no approach to the land of the decree holder Reliance was placed upon the language used in the appellate judgment and in particular the words "so far as it is feasible". The said objections of the present petitioner were taken on file as Objection Petition No. 53 of 1989. 2. The executing court passed an order on 18-5-1989 dismissing the objection petition No. 53 of 1989 on merits after recording evidence in the proceedings. It was pointed out by the executing court that the judgment debtor had not examined any responsible officer of ihe Electricity Board and it had only placed reliance on the statement of OW 1 Jai Gopal Pat-wari who had only stated that the vehicle cannot cross the river. It was pointed out by the executing court that the judgment debtor had not examined any responsible officer of ihe Electricity Board and it had only placed reliance on the statement of OW 1 Jai Gopal Pat-wari who had only stated that the vehicle cannot cross the river. The executing court observed that the execution of the decree for the purpose of removal of debris in the land of the decree holder was possible when the water of the river dries up in winter months by deploying adequate measures. Accordingly the objections were dismissed. Thereafter the main execution petition was also dismissed on 5-8-1989 for statistical purposes as unsatisfied as it was not possible during winter and rainy season and directed the decree holder to file a fresh execution petition 3. The present execution petition No. 21 of 1990 was filed on 13-3-1990 In the execution petition a specific reference has been made by the decree holder to the earlier order passed by the executing court on 18-5-1989 and the order passed on 5-8-J 989. The present petitioner sought to raise the same objections once again on the merits but they were over-ruled by the executing court holding that it was not open to the judgment debtor to raise the same objections which were negatived in the prior proceedings The order of the executing court has been passed on ,M-l993. It is the said order which is challenged in this revision petition by the judgment debtor. 4. Two contentions are urged before me. The first one relates to the merits of the case. Again reliance is placed before me on the language used in the appellate judgment that the carrying oat the directions contained in the decree by the judgment debtor need be done only if in so far as it is feasible. It is argued that it is not feasible and no vehicle can approach the land in question. As pointed out already, the same objections had been over-ruled by the executing court in objection petition No. 53 of 1989 by order dated 16-5-1989 and that order has become finat already. It is not open to the petitioner to raise the very same contention in these proceedings. The view expressed by the executing court is correct. 5. The second contention urged before me is that the present execution proceeding is barred by limitation. It is not open to the petitioner to raise the very same contention in these proceedings. The view expressed by the executing court is correct. 5. The second contention urged before me is that the present execution proceeding is barred by limitation. It is argued that though this question of limitation was not raised before the executing court, it is open to the judgment debtor to raise it for the first time in the revisional court in view of the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel submits that under Article 133 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation for executing a decree granting mandatory injunction is three years from the date of decree or where a date is fixed for performance, from such date. According to learned Counsel, no date has been fixed for performance of the decree and, therefore, the period of limitation has commenced from 6-12-1985, the date of the decree. 6. I am unable to accept this contention, Apart from the fact that the plea of limitation which was not raised before the executing court cannot be raised for the first time before the revisional court in view of the bar of constructive resjudicata, there is no substance in the plea. As I have already set out the relevant facts and pointed out that the prior execution petition was dismissed only for statistical purposes on 5-8-1989 and not on merits or for any fault of the decree holder. The court having dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtor found that it was not possible to execute the decree at that stage during summer and rainy season and directed the decree holder to file execution petition afresh for executing the decree. The court having dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtor found that it was not possible to execute the decree at that stage during summer and rainy season and directed the decree holder to file execution petition afresh for executing the decree. Hence the order of the executing court dated 5-8-1989 can be treated only as one closing the execution petition for statistical purpose and it cannot be treated as an order passed against the decree bolder or an order concluding the execution proceedings as such Hence the present execution petition No. 21 of 1990 though for statistical purpose is numbered and taken on file as a separate execution petition, is really one in continuation of the execution proceedings already filed by the decree holder in execution petition No. 86 of 1986 and in law the court is bound to dispose of the said execution petition, Hence the plea of limitation raised by the revision petitioner is wholly unsustainable and is hereby negatived, 7. I must place on record that it is not proper on the part of the Punjab State Electricity Board which is a statutory authority to raise such frivolous objections to execution petition when it has subjected itself to a decree and particularly when it got the decree modified by the appellate court to its advantage to some extent. The Board is bound to carry out the directions contained in the decree. I hope that the Board will not indulge in raising such objections in the execution petition hereafter. 8. With the above observations this civil revision is dismissed with costs. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 500 as costs to the decree holder. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the executing court on 2-12-1996. The executing court shall proceed to dispose of the execution petition in accordance with law. Revision dismissed.