Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The question that is posed in the revision is whether a decree can be executed in parts? To be more specific, the question is whether after a decree granting mandatory injunction has become unexecutable because of bar of limitation, the other part of the decree granting perpetual injunction can be enforced by the Court? 2. The petitioner is the decree holder. In the plaint he sought for the following reliefs: 1) Mandatory injunction for providing a culvert or pipe for draining away waste water flowing from A & B schedule roads at the portion where the land comprised in Sy. Nos. 29/8 and 29/5 converted by removing the construction made across the B Schedule road. 2) Mandatory injunction for removing the deviation and to restore the B schedule road to usable condition. 3) Mandatory injunction for removing the pipe, which is already placed beside the C schedule road and to render the road and the adjoining drain to the previous condition. 4) To direct the defendants to surrender the surrender form entrusted by the plaintiff earlier. Some perpetual injunctions were also sought for in the plaint. They are: a) The defendants shall not fill up the drain available at the western side of the D Schedule road. B) The defendants shall not make any alteration to the existing position of the aforesaid drain. C) The defendants shall not make any new drain at the eastern side of the B Schedule. D) The defendants shall not demolish the mud wall available at the eastern side of the road. E) The defendants shall not put up any slab or other obstruction at the portion for any flow into the pipe laid on the C Schedule pathway. F) The defendants shall not make any maintenance work on the D Schedule pathway. 3. After trial all the reliefs prayed for were not granted. However, a mandatory injunction directing defendants to restore the B & C Schedule roads to the original condition and to take steps for avoiding flow of water from the A and B schedule property was granted besides prohibitory injunction. The prohibitory injunction granted by the court on a perpetual basis were the following: "a) The defendants shall not fill up the gutter at the western side of the road. The prohibitory injunction granted by the court on a perpetual basis were the following: "a) The defendants shall not fill up the gutter at the western side of the road. b) The defendants shall not create any new gutter at the eastern side of the D schedule property. c) The defendants shall not cause any damage to the mud wall available at the eastern side of the road, which belongs to the plaintiff. 4. The question that now arises is whether the execution court was right in accepting the judgment debtor's contention that in view of the expiry of 3 years from the date of decree and the bar for enforcing the mandatory part of the decree, the other part has also become unenforceable. The court found that as two remedies were available to the decree holder and he had chosen one, he cannot fall back for execution of the original decree stating that he was pursuing other remedy of amending the decree. It was further found that even if the decree is amended, date of limitation runs not from the dace of amended decree; but from the date of decree itself. On that basis the E.P. itself was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Sarwan Lal and Anr. v. Kanti Prasad (AIR 1986 All. 1) in support of his contention that even if the decree granting mandatory injunction has become barred by limitation, the decree holder will be justified in proceeding with the execution with regard to other part of the injunction granted by the court. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the proviso to Art.136 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the decree granted by the trial court is for injunction. Nevertheless, it is clear from the reading of a decree that it consists of. two independent parts; the 1st being for enforcement of the duties of the defendants through mandatory injunction and the other restraining him from doing certain things. While Art.135 provides a period of limitation of three years for enforcement of decree granting mandatory injunction, Art.136 provides for twelve years for executing other decrees. However, it is specifically stated in Art.136 that an application for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction shall not be subjected to any period of limitation. While Art.135 provides a period of limitation of three years for enforcement of decree granting mandatory injunction, Art.136 provides for twelve years for executing other decrees. However, it is specifically stated in Art.136 that an application for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction shall not be subjected to any period of limitation. Thus, here is a case where the decree is composite; one part of which is subjected to limitation period of 3 years whereas the other is not subjected to any period of limitation at all and the petitioner can enforce the prohibitory injunction, whenever violation of that part takes place. The court below has not considered the question of enforcement of the prohibitory part of the injunction with reference to Art.136 of the Limitation Act. On the other hand it assumed mat once the mandatory part becomes unenforceable the other part also would be subjected to the same fate. This is clearly erroneous. Here is a case where the decree granted consists of two parts, which are divisible and not at all inter-dependent. Since the proviso to Art.136 does not provide for any limitation for enforcing the prohibitory part, the petitioner can very well maintain an execution petition with regard to that part of the decree. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the execution court for proceeding with the matter further in accordance with law. It will be open to the decree holder to file appropriate petition before the execution court limiting his prayer for enforcement of the prohibitory part of the injunction already granted.