IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33726 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.202/2004 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BABU, S/O.BHASKARAN, MAVILA VEEDU, AVANAKUZHI, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, VENPAKAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. SURENDRAN @ SUREN, S/O.BHASKARAN, MAVILA VEEDU, AVANAKUZHI, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, VENPAKAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. DEEPU, S/O.RADHA, MAVILA VEEDU, AVANAKUZHI, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, VENPAKAL DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUJA, W/O.KRISHNAN, VRINDAVAN, PARAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33726 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 in E.P.No.290 of 2007 in O.S.No.202 of 2004 on the file of the IInd Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. The decree executed is one passed in a suit for injunction, both mandatory and prohibitory, and the respondent is the decree holder. The decree granted to the plaintiff enables her to restore a compound wall as noted in the plan prepared by the Commissioner and also a prohibitory injunction against the defendants/judgment debtors from trespassing upon the plaint property or constructing any pathway through that property. Execution of the decree for putting up the compound wall was resisted by the petitioners/judgment debtors, in which, among other contentions, it was also canvassed that no construction of the compound wall can be proceeded with without obtaining a licence from the Panchayath. To substantiate WPC.33726/09 2 their objections, the Secretary of the Panchayath was also examined in the execution proceedings. The court below after considering the decree and also hearing the counsel on both sides, passed Ext.P6 order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to supervise the putting up of the boundary in tune with the decree. A Surveyor was also appointed to assist the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.P6 is that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent/decree holder is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. In Ext.P1 judgment rendered in the suit, the court has held that the restoration of the compound wall can be done with the consent of the Panchayath, if required, as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, is highlighted by the counsel contending that without getting WPC.33726/09 3 consent or licence from the Panchayath, the decree holder cannot put up the compound wall. The evidence of the Secretary of the Panchayath, who was examined as a witness in the execution proceedings, a copy of whose deposition is produced as Ext.P5, is also banked upon by the counsel that the court below went wrong in passing Ext.P6 order. The court has turned down what is stipulated under the decree and thus transgressed beyond the decree, is the submission of the counsel to impeach Ext.P6 order. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the counsel. A decree has been granted by the court enabling the plaintiff to restore and put up a compound wall which had been demolished allegedly by the defendants, as noted by the Advocate Commissioner in his plan which forms part of the decree. Such construction can be done only with the licence of the Panchayath cannot be raised as an objection by the petitioners/judgment debtors, who are bound by the decree. If the construction is done without obtaining licence from the Panchayath, if so required, the local authority can take appropriate steps, and no doubt, the decree holder/plaintiff has to answer such proceedings. That, WPC.33726/09 4 however, cannot be canvassed as a ground by the present petitioners/judgment debtors who are bound by the decree passed by the court. There is no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P6 order and the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp