- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party.
(2.) In this revision application under Section 115, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-2-2006 passed by Munsif- II, Dhanbad in Execution Case No.2/2006 whereby he has dismissed the execution case on the ground that the same is barred by limitation inasmuch as it was filed after 22 years from the date of the decree.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that in a case where decree is for perpetual injunction, there is no limitation in filing application for execution. In my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel is wholly misconceived. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner has obtained an ex parte decree in Title Suit No. 18/87 against the opposite party. The decree was passed on 7-4-88. The operative portion of the ex- parte decree reads as under:- "This suit coming on this 22nd day March, 1988 for final disposal before Sri Krishna Sinha, Munsif 2nd Dhanbad in the presence of Sri S. Paul, Advocate for the plaintiff and of none for the defendant. It is ordered and decreed that plaintiff's suit is decreed ex-parte. The title of the plaintiff is confirmed and defendant No.2 is directed to give vacant possession of the suit premises within sixty days and failing which the possession of plaintiff shall be restored by the Court at the cost of defendant. Defendant No.2 is further directed not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is permanently restrained not to raise any construction in suit premises.";