IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 29 of 2011 --------------------------- [ORDER DATED 23/03/2010 IN EP 164/09 IN OS.NO.13/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- OOMINI BHAVANI,W/O.PACHAN, MALEAKKAL HOUSE,KALLELIBHAGOM MURI,KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHARAN, SRI.RAJEEV RAJADHANI. RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SATHYAN,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.PACHAN, MALEAKKAL HOUSE,KALLELIBHAGOM MURI.P.O, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, PIN-690 546. 2. BABU,S/O.PACHAN,MALEAKKAL HOUSE, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI.P.O,KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK-690 546. 3. AMBIKA,W/O.BABU,MALEAKKAL HOUSE, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI,P.O, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUKK-690 546. R3 BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.29 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT 3rd respondent appears through counsel. Notice to other respondents in the civil revision is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass. 2. Plaintiff/decree holder has filed this civil revision challenging the order dated 23.03.2010 in E.P.No.164 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Karunagappally. Learned Munsiff, by the impugned order dismissed the execution petition holding that petitioner has not proved any violation of the decree and that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that 3rd respondent/3rd judgment debtor is not allowing the petitioner, the aged mother-in-law to stay in the building in the suit property. In response, learned counsel for 3rd respondent submits that 3rd respondent with two children is staying in the building in the suit property and that they have no objection in petitioner staying in the said building. That submission is recorded. 4. I have been given a copy of the decree in which it is stated that the suit is decreed in favour of petitioner restraining respondents 2 and 3 from forcibly evicting petitioner from plaint A schedule and causing obstruction to her in the said property. CRP No.29/2011 2 5. Though in E.P.No.164 of 2009 petitioner alleged violation of the decree, the executing court was not satisfied with the evidence given by petitioner as PW1 in regard to the alleged violation. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order in view of lack of evidence as regards the alleged violation of the decree. 6. So far as right of petitioner to reside in the building (plaint A schedule) is concerned, that is protected by the decree and learned counsel for 3rd respondent asserted that 3rd respondent has no objection in petitioner exercising that right, which I have recorded. 7. In the light of the above there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. But I make it clear that the order dated 23.03.2010 will not stand in the way of petitioner filing fresh execution petition in case of any violation of the decree. With the above observation this civil revision is closed. All pending interlocutory applications are dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks