IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 696 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2008 IN EP 48/2007 IN OS.163/1989 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------- M.J.SIMON, VELLAPPALLIL HOUSE, FROM MARAMANGALATHU, MANNANAMKARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------- ATHIRAMPUZHA SPECIAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NOW ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. MR.RAJESH THOMAS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.696 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February 2010 ORDER The decree holder in O.S No.163 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor is the revision petitioner. In the above suit, a decree was passed in his favour as against the respondent, a local authority. The decree provided for mandatory injunction for restoring 'B' and 'C' schedule road, preventing flow of water from 'A' and 'B' schedule property, and also a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from reclaiming the gutter on the western side of the 'D' schedule property described in the plaint. A further injunction was also granted restraining the defendant from creating a gutter on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. Alleging that the respondent had filled up the gutter and constructed a road expending a sum of Rs.30,000/- the decree holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for prosecuting the respondent for violating the decree. Respondent/judgment debtor resisted that application contending that the allegations imputed are baseless. It was further contended that, previously, the decree holder had moved applications imputing violation of the decree and those petitions have been dismissed. It was specifically contended that the judgment debtor had not reclaimed the gutter or violated the C.R.P No.696 OF 2008 Page numbers decree. No evidence was tendered by the decree holder to substantiate the case canvassed as to violation of the decree by the judgment debtor panchayat. Since no material was tendered to substantiate the allegations imputed as to flouting of the decree by the judgment debtor, the learned Munsiff dismissed the application. Challenge in the revision is against the dismissal of that application. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that in view of his old age and ailments, petitioner/decree holder could not meet the counsel in time to take necessary steps to lead evidence to substantiate the imputations raised in his petition as to the violation of the decree. The learned counsel, therefore, urged for setting aside the order and remitting the case to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case. In the alternative, it is contended that the right of the petitioner to vindicate his case by taking appropriate proceedings afresh may be left unaffected irrespective of the dismissal of the petition under the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent panchayat submitted that petitions one after other are filed raising baseless allegations against the panchayat by the petitioner, and in fact, the dispute is between two brothers in which the panchayat is unnecessarily dragged into C.R.P No.696 OF 2008 Page numbers raising baseless allegations. So far as the order passed by the court below dismissing the petition filed imputing violation of the decree, according to the counsel, no interference is called for. In the present case, after perusing the impugned order passed by the court below, I find that the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the application cannot be found fault with as no material was placed to substantiate the imputations made against the judgment debtor as to violating the decree. So far as the reservation claimed by the petitioner/decree holder, needless to point out, irrespective of the dismissal of the prosecution petition, if his rights are infringed by any act of the local authority, it is open to him to take appropriate proceedings, as provided by law. Subject to the above observations, the revision is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv