JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the order dated 17.07.2007 passed by learned Executing Court Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.2 Mandi (H.P.) in Execution Petition No.8/99/25-X of 2006 whereby learned Executing Court dismissed execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Brief facts of the case: 2. Deceased Kishori Lal decree holder filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC pleaded therein that C.S. No.142/1986 title Kishori Lal Vs. Hem Chand was decided on dated 7.5.1987 and ex-parte decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against judgment debtor restraining judgment debtor from opening any window or door facing towards the land of decree holder. In addition decree of mandatory injunction was also passed in favour of decree holder and judgment debtor was directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove any window or door and close it so far it faces the land of decree holder. Execution petition filed on 7.5.1999. Before filing execution petition original judgment debtor namely Hem Chand died and execution petition filed against sons of deceased JD and against widow of deceased JD. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of sons of JD and widow of JD pleaded therein that present execution petition is not maintainable and present execution petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that ex-parte decree passed in the year 1987 and original judgment debtor namely Hem Chand died in the year 1989-1990. It is further pleaded that Harish, Vinod and Shayamu sons of Hem Chand were minors and Smt. Daya Devi widow of Hem Chand is an illiterate woman and they have no knowledge about the ex-parte decree passed by Civil Court. It is further pleaded that sons and widow of deceased JD have not constructed any new window or door facing towards land of decree holder after passing decree by Civil Court. Prayer for dismissal of execution petition sought. 4. Learned executing Court framed following issues on dated 02.09.2013: (1) Whether the DH is entitled for execution of decree against the JDs as prayed for? ….OPDH. (2) Whether the execution petition is not maintainable as alleged? ……..OPJDs. (3) Whether the execution petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? ……..OPJDs. (4) Whether the execution petition is time barred? ……..OPJDs. (5) Relief. 5. ….OPDH. (2) Whether the execution petition is not maintainable as alleged? ……..OPJDs. (3) Whether the execution petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? ……..OPJDs. (4) Whether the execution petition is time barred? ……..OPJDs. (5) Relief. 5. Learned executing Court decided issues No.1 & 3 in negative and learned executing Court decided issues No.2 & 4 in affirmative. Learned executing Court dismissed the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. Decree holder namely Kishori Lal died on 4.10.2007 and his LRs Harsh and others filed present revision petition on 28.11.2007 before H.P. High Court. 6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether civil revision petition filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 3) Relief. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 8. AW-1 Sh. Kishori Lal has stated that he is owner of khasra No.880 and 881 of immovable property situated in Samkhetar. He has stated that in the year 1986 his neighbour Hem Chand deceased JD opened his windows and doors towards his land. He has stated that he requested deceased JD not to open windows and doors towards his land but he did not accept his request and thereafter he filed civil suit and same was decreed. He has stated that thereafter he filed execution petition against sons and widow of JD for violating judgment and decree passed against judgment debtor by the Civil Court. He has stated that JD Hem Chand died in the year 1990. He has stated that judgment debtor has four children. He has stated that Dinesh was also son of JD and he used to reside at Kullu and he has died. He has stated that he does not know that Hem Lata is daughter of JD. He has admitted that he did not implead the family members of Dinesh and Hem Lata as co-party in execution petition. He has denied suggestion that he has filed execution petition just to harass sons and widow of JD. 9. RW-1 Sh. Harish Kumar has stated that his house is situated at Samkhetar. He has stated that residential house of Sh. Kishori Lal is situated at a distance of about 100 feet from his house. He has denied suggestion that he has filed execution petition just to harass sons and widow of JD. 9. RW-1 Sh. Harish Kumar has stated that his house is situated at Samkhetar. He has stated that residential house of Sh. Kishori Lal is situated at a distance of about 100 feet from his house. He has stated that decree holder has constructed his cattle shed and latrine adjoining residential house of deceased JD. He has stated that he does not know that civil suit was filed against deceased judgment debtor. He has stated that JD also did not disclose about exparte decree. He has stated that LRs of JD have not raised any door or window towards the land of decree holder after passing of decree. He has stated that execution petition is filed just to harass LRs of JD. He has denied suggestion that LRs of judgment debtor were aware about the ex-parte decree. He has admitted that ventilator is kept towards land of deceased DH. He has denied suggestion that LRs of judgment debtor have harassed deceased Kishori Lal DH in illegal manner. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that learned executing Court has illegally decided issue No.4 relating to limitation is decided accordingly for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that ex-parte decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against deceased judgment debtor by Civil Court on 7.5.1987. It is also proved on record that in addition decree of simple mandatory injunction was passed by learned Trial Court against deceased JD on 7.5.1987. Prayer of revisionists before executing Court is to execute decree of simple mandatory injunction regarding closing of window opening towards land of DH. It is well settled law that limitation for enforcement of decree of simple mandatory injunction is three years only from date of decree or where date is fixed for performance three years from such date as per Article 135 of the Limitation Act 1963 as per schedule annexed with Limitation Act 1963. 11. It is also well settled law that any other decree can be executed within twelve years except decree of mandatory injunction as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 as per schedule annexed with Limitation Act 1963. It is also well settled law that decree of perpetual injunction is not subject to any period of limitation. 11. It is also well settled law that any other decree can be executed within twelve years except decree of mandatory injunction as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act 1963 as per schedule annexed with Limitation Act 1963. It is also well settled law that decree of perpetual injunction is not subject to any period of limitation. Learned Trial Court did not pass decree of perpetual mandatory injunction but only pass decree of simple mandatory injunction in C.S. No.142 of 1986 title Kishori Lal Vs. Hem Chand decided on 07.05.1987. It is held that decree of simple mandatory injunction was to be executed within three years w.e.f. 07.05.1987 as per Article 135 of Limitation Act 1963 annexed with schedule of Limitation Act 1963. 12. Decree holder did not file any site plan in order to prove that LRs of JD have raised new window after passing of decree. Even decree holder did not adduce any positive cogent and reliable independent evidence on record in order to prove that LRs of JD have raised new window after passing of decree. Even decree holder did not examine any mason or labourer in order to prove that LRs of JD have raised new window after passing of decree. It is well settled law that execution proceedings under order XXI Rule 32 CPC are punitive proceedings and in order to punish LRs of JD positive cogent and reliable evidence is required. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that LR of judgment debtor namely Harish Kumar when appeared in witness box as RW-1 has admitted existence of ventilator towards the land of decree holder and on this ground execution petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the testimony of LR of judgment debtor RW-1 namely Harish Kumar. Court has also carefully perused prayer sought by DH in present execution petition. DH has sought relief of removal of window opening towards land of DH in execution petition. DH has not sought relief of removal of ventilator in execution petition. There is lot of difference between window and ventilator as per law. Window means an opening in a wall fitted with glass in a frame to let in light or air and allow people to see out. Ventilator means sky light place below lintel of room. 14. DH has not sought relief of removal of ventilator in execution petition. There is lot of difference between window and ventilator as per law. Window means an opening in a wall fitted with glass in a frame to let in light or air and allow people to see out. Ventilator means sky light place below lintel of room. 14. It is well settled law that in revision petition High Court cannot reverse findings of facts unless findings are perverse. See AIR 1991 Apex Court page 455 title Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. Also see AIR 1969 Apex Court page 580 title Indore Municipality Vs. K.N. Palsikar. Also see AIR 1995 Apex Court page 1357 title P. Udayani Devi Vs. V.V. Rajeshwara Prasad Rao. Also see AIR 2002 Apex Court page 1004 title Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja. It is held that order of learned executing Court is not perverse. Point No.1 is decided against revisionists. Point No.2 (Relief). 15. In view of findings upon point No.1 present civil revision petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned executing Court alongwith certified copy of the order be sent back forthwith. C.R. No.212/2007 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.