ORDER : The order of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad, in E.P. No.2 of 2012, dated 14.12.2016 is under challenge. 2. Decree-holder to the execution petition has challenged the impugned order. 3. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and gave anxious consideration to the contents of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel. 4. In spite of service of notice upon the respondents 2 and 3, they failed to make their appearance and submit. 5. The execution petition, which stood numbered as E.P. No.2 of 2012, was moved by the decree-holder under order XXI Rule 11 CPC seeking the Court for executing the decree that was passed in O.S. No.63 of 1999 and thereby to pull down the structures present in the suit schedule property. The judgment debtors resisted the execution petition mainly on the ground that the said execution petition (EP) is barred by limitation. Considering the stand taken by the judgment debtors, coming to a conclusion that the E.P. is barred by limitation, the executing Court dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, decree-holder approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal. 6. Strenuously arguing that the dismissal of E.P. No.2 of 2012 is unsustainable under law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, an execution petition can be filed for executing a decree finally within its purview within a period of 12 years but the executing Court under the impression that for enforcement of a bare decree of mandatory injunction, the period of limitation is only 3 years and therefore, the E.P. is not within the period of limitation, dismissed the E.P. and if the period of limitation is taken as 12 years, the order would have been otherwise and therefore, the said order of the executing Court is challenged. 7. The learned counsel took the Court to the provisions contained in Articles 135 and 136 of the Limitation Act and submitted at length with regard to the distinction between those two Articles. 8. As per the material available on record, it is clear that the revision petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration of title, for possession and for mandatory injunction. 8. As per the material available on record, it is clear that the revision petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration of title, for possession and for mandatory injunction. The relief of mandatory injunction was sought for to direct the defendants to the suit to pull down the hut and other structures, which are present in the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit on 04.05.2001. The reliefs sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff were granted in toto. The defendants were directed to pull down the structures, which were constructed by them in the suit land within two months from the date of judgment. Therefore, the defendants ought to have removed those structures by 05.07.2001. On the ground that those structures were not removed, the plaintiff filed the execution petition on 04.05.2012. Observing that the execution petition is filed after 11 years and thereby it is barred by limitation, the Court dismissed the execution petition. 9. Thus, the point that arises for consideration is whether the execution petition (EP), which was filed on 04.05.2012 for execution of the decree dated 04.05.2001 is within the period of limitation. 10. Article 135 of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation as 3 years for enforcement of a decree granting mandatory injunction. The period of 3 years begins to run from the date of decree or when a date is fixed for performance, such date. 11. Coming to Article 136 of the Limitation Act, it prescribes 12 years for execution of any decree or order of civil Court other than the decree granting mandatory injunction, which is covered under Article 135. However, it is provided that for an application for enforcement or execution of a decree granting perpetual injunction, the said period does not apply. 12. With an observation that for the enforcement of a decree granting mandatory injunction, execution petition should have been filed within three years, as the revision petitioner/decree-holder has sought for enforcement of the decree of mandatory injunction and as the execution petition is not filed within the period of 3 years, the executing Court dismissed the execution petition. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case falls under the ambit of Article 136 of the Limitation Act where the limitation is 12 years and therefore, the execution petition is well maintainable. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case falls under the ambit of Article 136 of the Limitation Act where the limitation is 12 years and therefore, the execution petition is well maintainable. 14. For better appreciation of the facts, the following events and dates are taken into consideration : (1) Date of decree 04.05.2001 (2) Two months period granting the decree expires by 05.07.2001 (3) Date of presentation of execution petition 04.05.2012 Thus, the execution petition is filed after 11 years, from the date of decree, however, within 12 years. 15. Thus, if it is considered that the period of limitation is 3 years, taking into consideration the contents of Article 135 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the limitation period for execution of a decree of mandatory injunction, the order of executing Court is sustainable and if not, the E.P. is maintainable and the order of the executing Court has to be set aside. 16. Submitting that the case squarely falls within the purview of the Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is reported in MANOHAR SHANKAR NALE AND OTHERS Vs. JAIPALSING SHIVLALSING RAJPUT AND OTHERS, AIR 2008 SC 429 wherein their Lordships dealing with a decree of possession held that Article 136 of Limitation Act applies. However, the present case rests on different footing. 17. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is the one that is rendered by the High Court of Orissa between GYANENDRA PRADHAN Vs. SMT. KANAK DEI AND OTHERS, AIR 1985 ORISSA 254 wherein the said Court making an observation that the decree is not in the nature of carrying out an act of mandatory injunction made the following observation at para 4 of the order, which reads as under : “4. ….There was no specific direction in the decree to be carried out by the defendants which can be said to be in the nature of a mandatory injunction. As such, it cannot be said that Art.135 is attracted to the decree under execution. ….There was no specific direction in the decree to be carried out by the defendants which can be said to be in the nature of a mandatory injunction. As such, it cannot be said that Art.135 is attracted to the decree under execution. If Art.135 does not apply to the case then Art. 136, applies and the said provision prescribes twelve years for execution of any decree or order of civil court and the proviso expressly provides that there will be no period of limitation for enforcement of a direction for permanent injunction. Hence, the question of limitation does not arise.” The above decision also does not squarely apply to this case. 18. Next decision that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is the one that is rendered by the High Court of Bombay in a case between RAMDAS SHRIRAM CHAUDHARI Vs. GUNA KONDU DHANGER, SURESH GUNA DHANGER AND DYANESHWAR GUNA DHANGER, 2003 Law Suit (Bom) 1334 wherein the said Court holding that if a part of the decree is inseparable from the other relief granted through a decree, the period of limitation for enforcement of the main relief should be treated as period of limitation for enforcement of other relief also, held that rational approach is necessitated in those cases. The Court dealing with the same factual scenario as that of this case, held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act applies. The relevant details as per the decree in the said case as narrated at para 2 of the judgment are as follows : “Decree passed by the trial Court is as under: “the suit is decreed with costs. Defendants do put the plaintiff in possession of the suit plot No.192 situated at Uchande, Taluka: Edlabad, District Jalgaon. A Mandatory injunction be and is hereby granted. Defendatns are hereby ordered to remove the temporary house on the suit plot within one month from today. If the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the house removed through the Court during the execution of the decree. A prayer for perpetual injunction is dismissed. A decree be drawn up accordingly.” The Court dealing with the matter at para 4 observed as follows : “4. If the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the house removed through the Court during the execution of the decree. A prayer for perpetual injunction is dismissed. A decree be drawn up accordingly.” The Court dealing with the matter at para 4 observed as follows : “4. After going through the contents of the decree passed by the trial court, it is clear that the main relief granted by the trial court is in respect of putting the plaintiff in possession of the suit plot No.192, situated at Uchande, Taluka Edlabad. As there is a temporary house on the suit plot, the defendant was ordered to remove the said house within one month and if he failed to do so, it is ordered that the plaintiff will be at liberty to get the house removed through the court during the execution of the decree. After going through the impugned order the learned Judge has not referred to the first part for the decree i.e. the main relief granted in favour of the original plaintiff. It is to be noted that the first part of the decree relates to putting the plaintiff in possession of the suit plot. The limitation for enforcement of such decree is 12 (twelve) years.” Further stating that in such a case, Article 136 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act applies, at para 6 made the following observation : “The execution of the decree should not be made futile on mere technicalities which does not, however, mean that where a decree is incapable of being executed under any provisions of law it should, in all cases, be executed non-with-standing such bar or prohibition. However, if a decree is granted for two reliefs and the second relief is contingent upon the first, a rational approach is necessitated keeping in view the prolonged factum of litigation resulting in the passing of a decree in favour of a litigant. The policy of law is to give a fair and liberal and not a technical construction enabling the decree holder to reap the fruits of his decree. The policy of law is to give a fair and liberal and not a technical construction enabling the decree holder to reap the fruits of his decree. In short, when the decree is passed in respect of two reliefs for which different period of limitation is prescribed and if the second relief is separable from the first relief, then in that case the bar of limitation for enforcing that part of the decree will come in the way of the decree holder. For example, if the decree is for possession and compensation and if the decree for recovery of the amount of compensation is not enforced within the prescribed time limits, then enforcement of the said part of the decree would be barred by limitation. However, if the second part of the decree is inseparable from the first part fo the decree i.e. if the second relief is inseparable from the first relief as in the present case of recovery of possession coupled with the mandatory injunction to demolish the house then the period of limitation for enforcement of the main relief should be treated for enforcement of such type of decree by giving fair and liberal and not technical construction to enable the decree holder to reap the fruits of his decree. In the result, I hold that the decree of possession coupled with mandatory injunction, though the enforcement of decree for mandatory injunction is not claimed within three years prescribed under Article 135 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, however, the entire decree for possession coupled with mandatory injunction can be enforced as per provisions of Article 136 of the Schedule given in the Limitation Act.” 19. In the present case also as per the decree, the revision petitioner was declared as the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the defendants were directed to pull down the structures present in the suit schedule property within two months. Thus, the main relief granted and the second consequential / ancillary relief given are inseparable. Therefore, as discussed above and indicated through the decision of the High Court of Bombay, for execution of such decrees Article 136 applies. 20. Having regard to the legal position enumerated as above and the view taken, this Court holds that the order of the executing Court is unsustainable. Therefore, as discussed above and indicated through the decision of the High Court of Bombay, for execution of such decrees Article 136 applies. 20. Having regard to the legal position enumerated as above and the view taken, this Court holds that the order of the executing Court is unsustainable. The E.P. filed by the revision petitioner is thus maintainable and is within the period of limitation. 21. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order rendered by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad in E.P. No.2 of 2012, dated 14.12.2016 is hereby set aside. The E.P. is ordered to be restored to file and to proceed with as provided under law. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.