IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 482 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2009 IN EP 243/02 IN OS.1211/1998 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BALAKRISHNA KAMATH, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.V.SANTHARAM RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VANAJAKSHY AMMA, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJAMMA, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SANTHOSH, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUKUMARI, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. AJITHKUMAR, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. VISWANATHAN, SUKUMARI SADANAM, MANNANCHERY MURI, MANNANCHERY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.482 OF 2009 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.2009 in E.P.No.243 of 2002 in O.S.No.1211 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Allappuzha. Petitioner is the decree holder in the above case. The decree passed in the above suit was one for a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from trespassing upon the plaint property and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/decree holder. The decree was passed ex parte. Petitioner/decree holder thereafter had filed an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking directions/orders for putting up a boundary wall in the plaint property with the assistance of police aid. The application was opposed to by the judgment debtors. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application after considering the materials produced and CRP.482/09 2 hearing the counsel on both sides. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The judgment debtors have no right over that property, and in view of the decree passed, they are bound to comply with that decree, and the court below went wrong in disallowing the request made in the execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree holder, is the submission of the learned counsel. An application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC in respect of a decree passed for prohibitory injunction will lie only where it is established that the defendants/judgment debtors, against whom that decree was passed had violated or infringed the decree. Obedience to the decree by the judgment debtors when there is wilful or deliberate default in infringing with that decree is what is contemplated under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC. The decree that was granted to the petitioner/decree holder is one for prohibiting the judgment debtors from interfering with its possession and CRP.482/09 3 enjoyment and from trespassing upon the plaint property. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no commission was taken in the suit which gave rise to the decree of injunction. Whatever that be, by virtue of that decree of injunction, he cannot seek execution/direction or orders from the court for putting up boundary walls in his property. No decree has been granted in favour of the decree holder identifying and fixing the boundaries of his property. For the solitary reason, the order passed by the court below is not liable to be interfered with. The learned Munsiff has also found that there is nothing on materials produced to hold that there was any wilful disobedience by the judgment debtors, against whom the decree of injunction was passed in the suit. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp