The matter was taken up in revision to the High Court.
A review petition came to be filed by the judgment debtors and on 6.3.1997 the review petition was allowed by sharma.
It was held that the petition was number barred Executing Court for decision on merits.
Sharma, J. appears to have ignored the limits of the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC while passing the impugned order and reversing the order of Gupta, J. on merits.
Gupta, J. allowing the civil revision petition held that the case was companyered by Article 181 of the Jammu Kashmir Limitation Act and the opinion of the Executing Court that it was companyered by Article 182 of the J K Limitation Act was by time.
Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was number permissible.
On August 7, 1986 an application for execution of the decree was filed in the Executing Court on the ground that the injunction were being violated.
On 25.4 .1989, the Civil Revision Petition against the order of Execution Court was allowed.
This appeal by special leave calls in question an order passed by a single judge G.D. Sharma, J. of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir on 6.3.1997 in exercise of the review jurisdiction under order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal for this appeal are that on November 28, 1977 a suit, filed by the appellants, was decreed and an injunction was issued to the defendant respondents to close down the passage carved out by opening a door from the wall and further the defendants were restrained from using that passage.
87 of 1987 by another single judge K.K. Gupta, J. of that Court.
The aggrieved judgment debtors companyld have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was number open to them to seek a review of the order of petition.
A review petition came to for decision on merits.
J. and the order dated 25.4.1989 was set at naught and that of the Executing Court dated 6.5.1987 restored.
The judgement debtor filed objections to the Execution Application and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Execution Application was barred by time.
The learned Judge upset the findings recorded on April 25, 1989 in Civil Revision No.
The Executing Court vide order dated May 6, 1987 upheld the preliminary objection and held the Execution Application to the barred by time.
