IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31872 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- OS.1831/2000 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P. SREEDHARAN, T.C.11/1004, NANTHAN CODE, AGED 78 YEARS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.G.P.SHINOD MR.RAM MOHAN.G. MR.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SATHIKUMARI, D/O.LATE ANANDA VALLY, AGED 46 YEARS, T.C 11/1004, VILAYI VEEDU, NANTHAN CODE. BY ADV. MR.PRAVEEN VYASAN . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 31872/2008-T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.1831/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/09/2002 IN O.S. NO.1831/2000. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE E.A.316/2008 IN E.P.265/2003 IN O.S.1831/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2008 IN E.A.316/2008 IN E.P.265/2003 IN O.S.1831/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31872 OF 2008 (T) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P5 order and allow Ext.P3 application. ii. to grant such other and further reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. Petitioner is the decree holder in E.P.No.265/2003 in O.S.No.1831/2000 on the file of the IInd Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Pursuant to the execution of the decree passed in the above suit, the decree holder obtained vacant possession of two rooms, which was described as 'B' schedule in the suit, from the possession of the judgment debtors. Beside these two rooms, admittedly, there is a latrine and a bathroom. It is the case of the decree holder that the WPC.31872/08 2 bathroom and latrine were not delivered over but retained by the judgment debtors under their lock and key keeping their movables therein for which they had no right after a decree had been passed in the suit. Decree holder moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC for an order from the court to evict the judgment debtors from the bathroom and the latrine. 2. Notice being given, the judgment debtors appeared and they resisted the application contending whatever had been provided in the decree had been specified, and in respect of a bathroom and latrine, no decree has been granted and they have independent right over the same. The learned Munsiff accepting the case of the judgment debtors, dismissed the application of the decree holder. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the decree holder has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. WPC.31872/08 3 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. From the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P5 order and other materials tendered with the writ petition, I find the learned Munsiff has not appreciated the grievance canvassed by the decree holder in the proper perspective with reference to the totality of the facts and circumstances involved in the case. The execution court is bound to give effect to the decree even if it is found to be vague by supplementing the loopholes without violating the decree. The contextual background in which the decree was obtained, if necessary, has to be examined in considering the merit of the application moved by the decree holder. A copy of the judgment passed in the suit has been produced with the writ petition as Ext.P1. Perusing Ext.P1 judgment, I notice that before filing the present suit, the decree holder had initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act against the judgment debtors. An order of eviction was passed by that court but it was reversed by the appellate authority. It is submitted by the counsel that the rental arrangement was disputed by the respondents WPC.31872/08 4 and that persuaded the appellate authority to conclude that there was no landlord tenant relationship between the parties, and so much so, the provisions of the Rent Control Court are inapplicable. Being driven to the civil court to file a suit for eviction of the judgment debtors, probably by inadvertance, while describing the scheduled property in the suit eviction was styled as two rooms without referring to the appurtenant premises including the latrine and bathroom. By any stretch of imagination, that could not have been considered as a circumstance enuring in favour of the judgment debtors after a decree is passed directing their eviction from the 'B' schedule to retain possession of the bathroom and latrine which cannot have an independent enjoyment otherwise than in occupation of the two rooms in which they continued occupation till evicted under the decree. A court called upon to adjudicate disputes whether on the trial side or in the execution is expected to unravel and decipher problems which may arise in interpreting a decree or order, but in doing so, the persuasive factor is the motivation to advance the interest of justice and that alone. Technical interpretation of a decree WPC.31872/08 5 in the present case may justify the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff. But when the facts presented in the case demanded an enquiry and consideration whether the judgment debtors could have retained a latrine and bathroom attached to the two rooms under their occupation from which they were evicted pursuant to the decree passed in the suit, the court cannot abdicate its jurisdiction in examining that question. At any rate, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the decree holder that he was not given sufficient opportunity to produce materials and satisfy the court that the decree has to be interpreted even if it is not specifically provided that the two rooms take the appurtenant premises also, including the latrine and bathroom. In the given facts of the case an enquiry by the court on those aspects is essential, and so much so, setting aside the impugned order the case is remitted directing the court below to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and justice. I make it clear the the learned Munsiff shall take a decision in the matter on the basis of the materials produced in the WPC.31872/08 6 proceeding, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides, untrammeled by any of the observations made in this judgment. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp