IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 455 of 2011() -------------------------- E.P. NO.104/2010 IN O.S. NO.472/2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM ........ REVN. PETITIONER(S):PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------------------------------- RAVUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHRI. PACHEERIKUNDIL ACHUTHAN EZHUTHASSAN, VENGASSERI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R. SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------- BALAN, S/O.PANAKKAD PAKAN, VENGASSERIL AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, POST VENGASSERI - 679 516. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.455 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of October, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is plaintiff/decree holder in O.S.No.472 of 2005 and E.P.No.104 of 2010 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Ottappalam aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2011 dismissing the execution petition for prosecution of respondent/judgment debtor-2 for alleged violation of the decree. A decree was passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent and his father trespassing into the suit property, cutting and removing the improvements on the etha, preventing petitioner putting up fence and for recovery of damages to the tune of `.300/-. Alleging that on 04.07.2010 respondent trespassed into the suit property and cut down trees, petitioner filed E.P.No.104 of 2010. That execution petition was resisted by the respondent. Executing court found that there is no evidence to show that respondent has committed the mischief and dismissed the execution petition which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the fact of cutting of trees is admitted by the respondent and the dispute is as to the location where the trees stood. That could have been cured C.R.P.No.455 of 2011 -: 2 :- proved taking out a commission, it is submitted. 3. It is not merely a dispute regarding location alone but there is dispute as to who cut and removed the trees. According to the respondent, that was done by the petitioner. Respondent stated that petitioner cut and removed the trees on the western side of the suit property. The location stated by petitioner is not the western side. There is no admission by the respondent that he cut and removed the trees in question. Apart from the fact that no commission was taken out to prove the location where the trees stood, there is no reliable evidence who cut down the trees. What is available in that regard is oath against oath, petitioner as PW1 asserting that it is done by the respondent and the latter as RW1 denying that. Executing court did not find sufficient evidence to find who exactly had cut and removed the trees in question. That is a finding of fact entered by the executing court. I do not find any infirmity in the finding so that this Court should interfere in the matter, in revision. This civil revision is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-