IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 247 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2008 IN EP.178/2005 IN OS.126/1981 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT/2ND DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------- THILAKAN, S/O.KARINCHENA NARAYANAN TRIPRAYAR DESOM, NATTIKA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------------------------------------- RADHA, W/O.PUVATHUR KADAVIL SIDHARTHAN AND D/O.KODAPPULLY KUMARAN, THRIPRAYAR DESOM NATTIKA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 247/2008 ORDER IN I.A.NO.702 OF 2008 IN CRP NO.247 OF 2008 DISMISSED 2.3.2009 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.247 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 ORDER One of the judgment debtors challenges the order dated 16th February 2008 in E.P.No.178 of 2005 in O.S.No.126 of 1981 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Chavakkad. The decree was passed in favour of the respondent for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in constructing boundaries on B schedule property as shown in Ext.C2 plan. The decree has become final. The decree holder filed E.P.No.178 of 2005 for deputing Amin for construction of a compound wall as per the decree. 2. The petitioner contended that the decree is not executable. Relying on Kadiyammakutty Umma vs. Karappan (1988 (1) KLT 421) and Ajayakumar vs. Damayanthi (2004 (2) KLT 48), the court below held that the executing court has jurisdiction to enforce the decree for prohibitory injunction as well. Going by the decree, the decree holder is entitled to the CRP 247/2008 2 reliefs claimed in the Execution Petition. Before the executing court, the decree holder was examined. Considering the evidence adduced by the decree holder, the court below thought that it is necessary to depute the Amin for construction of the compound wall in terms of the decree. The judgment debtors did not adduce any evidence. The contention of the petitioner, who is one of the judgment debtors, is that the Execution Petition is barred by limitation. It is contended that the decree was passed on 28.3.1983 and the Execution Petition was filed beyond 12 years. The execution petition was filed on 16.3.2005. 3. The contention of the petitioner that the Execution Petition barred by limitation is without substance. Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides for a period of 12 years for filing an application for execution of any decree. The period begins to run when the decree or order become enforceable. In the 3rd column of the schedule to the Limitation Act, against Article 136, there is a proviso which states that an application for the enforcement for execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation. The contention raised by the petitioner is therefore not sustainable. CRP 247/2008 3 4. The court below has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner. The finding of the court below is legal and proper. No grounds are made out for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the compound wall is constructed, the property of the judgment debtor would be submerged in water. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has filed another suit pointing out this fact. Any how, no such contention was raised in the Execution Petition before the court below. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider this contention raised by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the order in this revision and the order passed by the executing court will not preclude the petitioner from raising the contentions in the suit, if it is not otherwise barred. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl