IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2007 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1929 CRP.No. 3222 of 2001(C) ----------------------- OS.101/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR/1S DEFENDANT IN O.S.: ----------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTAPPAN, S/O RAMAN, KALLUKALAYIL, VADAYMPADY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER & JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2, 3 AND 4/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2,3 AND 4: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHARATHI AMMA, D/O KUNJIYAMMA, VADASSERY VEETTIL, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. 2. GOPI, S/O NARAYANANPILLAI, VADASSERY VEETTIL, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. 3. RAJU, S/O NARAYANANPILLAI, VADASSERY VEETTIL, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE. 4. AMMINI AMMA, D/O PAPPU AMMA, NADUVATHU VEETTIL, RESIDING A VADASSERIL, VADAYAMPADY KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE R1 BY SRI.K.SETHUNATH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 6716 OF 2001 IN C.R.P. NO.3222 OF 2001 DISMISSED 28/3/07 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 3222 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of March, 2007. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kolenchery in E.P.13/00 in O.S.101/98. As per the terms of the decree it is stated that defendants in O.S.101/98 are restrained, until a way is set out under Section 14 of the Easement Act through B, C and D scheduled properties to A schedule property, from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff or her men from using either of the pathway noted in Ext.C1(a) sketch etc. So it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that what is directed by the Court below is for a right of way through B, C and D schedule. According to him, the trial Court has only accepted the second plan wherein an easy way is provided, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. I feel this is a fit case where a second look in the matter is necessary by the executing Court. Without making any observation on the merits of the case, I want to caution that the executing Court is ordinarily expected to comply with the terms of the decree and not otherwise and unless there are legally C.R.P. NO. 3222 OF 2001 -:Page numbers:- permissible methods by which it can be deviated from. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to consider whether the contention raised by the revision petitioner is really sustainable in the light of the judgment and decree referred to by me for which an execution petition is filed. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- C.R.P. NO. 3222 OF 2001 -:Page numbers:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 3222 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 28th March, 2007.