IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21934 of 2008(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 142/2005 IN OS.5/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KODIYIL SABIRA, W/O.HAMEED, RESIDING AT KAKKATHODU, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- KAKKOTAKATH PUTHIYAPARAMBATH AYISUMMA, D/O.MARIYUMMA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21934 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent the decree holder. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order passed by Munsiff, Taliparamba, in E.P.No.142 of 2005 in O.S.No.5 of 2004. The decree is for a mandatory injunction directing petitioner-judgment debtor to demolish and remove portion of the concrete slab protruding into the plaint schedule property and also to remove the hollow bricks wall constructed across the stair case and to restore it to previous position. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that decree was passed ex-parte and while granting the decree, identity of the property was not decided and under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff has relied on the report submitted by the Commissioner in a RCP in which petitioner is not a party, and in such circumstances, the order is to be W.P.(C) No.22073/2008 2 quashed. The learned counsel further submitted that decree does not show in which portion of the plaint schedule property, the portion of the slab is protruding and in the absence of clarity in decree, learned Munsiff is not justified in directing demolition. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P3 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. If the grievance of the petitioner is against the decree, remedy is to challenge the decree, even if it was an ex-parte order. Petitioner is not entitled to contend that decree is not binding on him. Decree is directing petitioner to demolish and remove portion of the slab protruding into the decree schedule property. The decree could definitely be executed even if the decree does not show where the portion of the slab is protruding into the plaint schedule property. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.