IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 1060 of 2006 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.2720/1999 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN CRP: ---------------------------------------------- P.SOBHANA, W/O. VISWANATHAN, PUTHIYA PARAMBATH, VENGERI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN MR.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS IN CRP: ----------------------------------------- 1. VALLIMADATHIL MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, VELLIMADATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. SOUDAMINI, W/O. -DO- -DO- BY ADV.MR.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.1060 of 2006 in C.R.P.No.2720 of 1999 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the respondent in C.R.P.No.2720 of 1999 which was disposed by order dated 29.9.2006. That revision was filed by the judgment debtors in E.P.No.41 of 1999 in O.S.No.706 of 1991 challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff in a proceeding under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the judgment debtors and in favour of the present review petitioner/plaintiff was passed in the above suit. Imputing violation and infringement of the decree by judgment debtors the revision petitioner/decree holder moved the above execution petition in which among other reliefs, it is submitted, she had applied for putting up a boundary of the decree schedule property also. That application after enquiry was allowed in favour of the decree holder. Propriety and correctness of that order was challenged in the revision by the judgment debtors. This Court by order dated 25.11.1999 allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The present petition at the instance of the R.P.No.1060 of 2006 2 respondent in the revision/decree holder is for review of the order rendered by this Court in revision. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner inviting my attention to the observations made by this Court disposing the revision that nothing prevented the decree holder to put a boundary for safeguarding her property submitted that in the execution petition she had made a prayer for putting up a boundary as well. Canvassing support from sub rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI of the CPC that the execution court can pass appropriate orders directing such 'act required to be done' for giving effect to the decree, it is submitted, reviewing the order of the court passed in revision to advance the ends of justice the decree holder has to be granted permission to put up the boundary of the decree schedule property to enjoy the fruits of the decree of injunction. Explanation added to sub rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI brought in by way of amendment in Act 22 of 2002 needless to say has widened the scope and ambit of Rule 32. The 'act required to be done' which takes in prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, however, must have close nexus with the decree of injunction granted in the suit. In a proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure imputing violation of a decree it is open to the court to R.P.No.1060 of 2006 3 pass appropriate orders directing the judgment debtor to do such acts which are required to be done to undo the mischief committed violating the decree of injunction and in that context the act which may be required to be done by him can be prohibitory or mandatory. But, where an order passed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been disposed of by way of revision by this Court in a review petition against that order it is not open to the petitioner/decree holder to contend that he/she has a valuable right for putting up a boundary over her property and for an enabling order from this Court as if it was an 'act required to be done' by the judgment debtors. An enquiry on the review petition has to be confined within the parameters covered by Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review can never be an appeal in disguise. I find no merit in the review petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-