IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.No. 558 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/09/2010 IN EP.63/2009 IN OS.255/2007 of MUNISIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------------- 1. JANKIYAMMA W/o. RAVINDRAN PILLAI AMBATTU (CHIRACHALIL) HOUSE EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O THODUPUZHA NOW RESIDING AT KUREEKKATTU HOUSE THEKKUMBHAGAM P O THODUPUZHA 2. RAVINDRAN PILLAI S/o. SANKARAN PILLAI AMBATTU (CHIRACHALIL) HOUSE EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O, THODUPUZHA 3. AMBILI D/o. RAVINDRAN PILLAI AMBATTU (CHIRACHALIL) HOUSE EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O, THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS: --------------- 1. K R SURESH, S/o. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR KUREEKKATTU (H) EDAVETTY KARA KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O, THODUPUZHA- 685585 2. K R SATHEESH, S/o. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR KUREEKKATTU (H) EDAVETTY KARA KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O, THODUPUZHA- 685585 3. SREEKANDAN NAIR S/o. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR AMBATTU (CHIRACHALIL) HOUSE EDAVETTY KARA KARIKODE VILLAGE EDAVETTY P O, THODUPUZHA- 685585 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.558 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of October, 2010 ORDER Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 in E.P.No.63 of 2009 in O.S.No.255 of 2007 of the court learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha is the petitioner before me. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for lateral support for plaint A schedule belonging to them from plaint B schedule belonging to petitioner and respondent No.3. The matter was referred to the Adalath where there was settlement and an award was passed. As per that award parties agreed that petitioners and respondent No.3 will leave 3feet vide space on the eastern extremity of their property to provide lateral support for property of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was also agreed that if on account of petitioners and respondent No.3 removing earth compound wall of respondent Nos.1 and 2 collapsed, petitioners and respondent No.3 will make necessary arrangements to restore the wall at their expense. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed E.P.No.63 of 2009 on 12-08-2009 alleging that petitioners removed earth adjoining the compound wall and it resulted in a portion of the compound wall collapsing. Petitioners resisted execution petition and contended that it was due to poor construction of compound C.R.P.No.558 of 2010 : 2 : wall that it collapsed. Executing court found in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed restoration of the compound wall. That order is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no reliable evidence to show that collapse of the compound wall was due to removal of earth. The Advocate Commissioner was not able to find any removal of earth as alleged by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Further argument is that though the alleged collapse as stated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was on 13-09-2009 (not pleaded) execution petition was filed only on 12-08-2009. 2. The question this court is required to decide is whether revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised in respect of the order under challenge. Respondent No.1 has given evidence as PW1. PW2 is a witness, admittedly a neighbour. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 show that petitioners removed earth using JCB and tipper lorries and that resulted in the collapse of wall. It is their case that earth was removed at a depth of about 5 to 6 feet. Petitioner No.1 was examined as DW1. She admitted that on a prior occasion due to removal of earth (in 2007) compound wall had collapsed. Executing court considered the oral and documentary evidence and found in favour of the case set up by respondent Nos.1 and 2. That finding rest on a proper appreciation of the evidence. I do not find any C.R.P.No.558 of 2010 : 3 : illegality, perversity or irregularity in the finding entered by the executing court requiring exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-