IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 416 of 2010(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36202/2009 Dated 09/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): (RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION (C): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.LATE SHRI PAPPU, RESIDING AT MUNDOKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KALAMBOOR, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN RESPONDENT(S): (PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION (C): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOURI,W/O.KUNJU PILLAI, KURIYADATH HOUSE, KALAMBOOR PO, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- R.P No.416 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.36202 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner seeks review of the order passed by this Court dated 9.3.2010 in W.P. (C) No.36202 of 2009. 2. This Court while dispose of the writ petition observed as follows:- "There is no specification regarding the length, width or the type of drainage to be provided by the petitioner. It is also seen that the drainage which was provided by the petitioner has been in existence for a long time. There was no complaint for the respondent regarding the drainage till the present EP was filed. The Commissioner's reports on both occasions have noticed the existence of the drainage and there is nothing to show in the report that the drainage provided is insufficient in any manner. Equally unsustainable is the observation that the respondent can remove any roots of the trees, from the property, which are causing obstruction to the decree holder. Admittedly that does not form part of the compromise decree. But if the trees standing in the property of the petitioner are causing any inconvenience to the respondent, he can take such steps as are available to him in law. In fact, such a relief could not have been granted by the Court below in the present proceedings since that did not form part of the decree. The result is that the order of the Court below is unsustainable both in law and on facts. R.P No.416 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.36202 of 2009 2 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside and EP No.55 of 2009 stands dismissed." 3. It is pointed out by the review petitioner that drainage now provided is too insufficient and inadequate to drain out the water from the property of the review petitioner to the Public Drain. The present arrangement was not in terms of the compromise decree or according to its spirit. The understanding was that proper drainage is to be provided. On that basis, a compromise was entered into. It is true that no specification regarding the length, width or the type of drainage to be provided by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that the understanding was that proper drainage facility will be provided on the basis of the compromise agreement. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that proper drainage facility is made available to the review petitioner in the light of the compromise decree entered into between the parties. R.P No.416 of 2010 in W.P (C) No.36202 of 2009 3 5. Respondent counsel submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 6. The execution court namely, the Munsiff's Court Muvattupuzha shall take up E.P.55/09 on its file and ensure that proper drainage facilities are made available to the review petitioner, after hearing both parties and causing least inconvenience to the petitioner in writ petition. 7. Parties shall appear before the court below on 23.6.2010. The court below shall take every endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma