Babu Singh (D) Thr. Lrs vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 17 February, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Babu Singh (D) Thr. Lrs vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 17 February, 2026

     ITEM NO.8                         COURT NO.12                  SECTION IV-B

                              S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)              No(s).    4284/2023

     [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-09-2022
     in CR No. 2514/2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
     Chandigarh]

     BABU SINGH (D) THR. LRS & ANR.                                  Petitioner(s)

                                                VERSUS

     JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ANR.                              Respondent(s)

     IA No. 33657/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
     JUDGMENT

Date : 17-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv.

Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Srishti Singla, Adv.

Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vagisha Kochar, AOR

Mr. Vivek Jain, A.A.G.
Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This special leave petition impugns

Signature Not Verified judgment and order of the High Court dated
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.02.17
16:26:59 IST
Reason: 20.09.2022 dismissing the revision of the

1
petitioners against the order of the

Execution Court dated 08.01.2014 by which

application filed by the petitioners under

Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 was dismissed as barred by

limitation.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal

that the trial court had dismissed the suit

of the petitioners against which a First

Appeal was preferred. The First Appellate

Court vide judgment and decree dated

06.01.2005 dismissed the suit in the

following terms:

“Considering all the aspects of
the case from every angle, I find
that the cancellation of the
allotment of the plot NO. 30 and
some portion of plot NO. 31 made
by the respondents as per letter
dated 29.07.93 Ex. D1 is illegal,
wrong and unconstitutional which
is not binding upon the
plaintiffs. I also find the
appellants entitled for the
mandatory injunction to be issued

2
against the respondents directing
them to comply with order passed
by the defendant No. 1 as per
order No. JIT-5702 dated 18.2.88.
The plaintiffs are also held
entitled for the discretionary
relief of injunction to be issued
against the respondents
restraining them from demolishing
building and to interfere in the
possession of the plaintiffs till
the compensation of the raised
construction is assessed and is
paid to the appellants.

Accordingly, I reverse the
findings given by the trial court
on issues 3,4 &5 and decided the
same in favour of the appellants.
The appeal is accepted. The suit
of the plaintiffs as prayed for is
decreed with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared. File be
consigned.”

4. An Execution Application was filed on

12.08.2010 seeking implementation of

mandatory injunction part of the decree. The

Execution Court dismissed said Application

as barred by limitation by relying on

3
Article 135 of the Schedule to the

Limitation Act, 1963 which provides

limitation for enforcement of a decree

granting a mandatory injunction. The

limitation period provided therein is three

years commencing from the date of the decree

or where a date is fixed for performance,

such date.

5. As the decree passed by the First

Appellate Court did not specify any date for

performance, the limitation period would

commence from the date of the decree, as was

held by the Execution Court.

6. In such circumstances, we find no

justification to interfere with the impugned

order inasmuch as the Execution Application

was limited to enforcement of mandatory

injunction part of the decree.

7. The Special Leave Petition is,

accordingly, dismissed.

4

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall

stand disposed of.

(CHETAN ARORA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

5