IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 363 of 2010() --------------------- OS.701/2007 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GOPAKUMAR,S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MAVARATHALA VEEDU,CHAIKKOTTUKONAM.P.O,MARUTHATHOOR NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695122. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- 1. RAJAN,S/O.JACOB,'SARAS',CHAIKKOTTUKONAM .PO,KARUTHATHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695122. 2. SARASAMMA,W/O.RAJAN,CHAIKKOTTUKONAM.P.O, MARUTHATHOOR,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 122. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 363 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 30.3.2010 in E.P.No.394 of 2008 in O.S.No.701 of 2007 of the court of learned Addl. Munsiff-I Neyyattinkara. Respondents obtained a decree against petitioner for prohibitory injunction. Respondents filed E.P.No.394/2008 under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') alleging that in flagrant violation of the decree petitioner demolished compound wall. Execution court on the evidence found in favour of the said allegation and by the impugned order directed petitioner to be detained in the Civil prison for a period of 10 days. Respondents were also allowed to relaise a sum of Rs.4180/- from petitioner as cost of restoration of compound wall. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no reliable evidence to show that compound wall was demolished by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, possibility of compound wall collapsing in rain cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for respondents supported the order. It is no disputed that there is a decree restraining petitioner from interfering with the disputed compound wall and that at the C.R.P.NO. 363 OF 2010 2 time of respondents filing E.P.No.394 of 2008 that compound wall had collapsed. Question is whether it was due to the intervention of any human agency and, if so, petitioner is behind that. PWs. 1 to 3 have given evidence in support of the case of respondents. PW1, respondent No.1 has given evidence that petitioner demolished the wall. PWs. 2 and 3 claimed that when they tried to re-construct compound wall at the instance of respondents that was obstructed by petitioner. Petitioner did not adduce any contra evidence. It is based on evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Exts.A1 and A2, copy of the report and plan (on the trial side) and Exts.C1 and C2 obtained in execution that executing court found that the wall was demolished by petitioner. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, evidence of PW1 is quite unbelievable in that, if so much time was taken by the petitioner to demolished the wall, in the normal course respondents would have informed the matter to the local Police. Merely because respondents did not do that evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be discard. That, petitioner obstructed reconstruction of the compound wall as stated PWs. 2 and 3 corroborated evidence of PW1 that it was petitioner who demolished the compound wall. I, therefore find no reason to interfere with the finding of execution court that C.R.P.NO. 363 OF 2010 3 petitioner, in violation of the decree demolished the compound wall. What remains is the punishment that should be awarded to the petitioner. Under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code when decree for injunction is violated the judgment debtor could be detained in the Civil prison or, his property could be attached to remain in force for the period specified therein and the property in liable to be sold if in the meantime, the violation is not remedied. In this case, the compound wall has already been restored by respondent spending Rs.4,180/- which executing court has allowed them to realise from petitioner. While granting interim stay, this Court directed petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.4,180/- in the execution court. Learned counsel states that by a mistake he happened to send copy of the said order to a client of his at Tirur and hence, petitioner could not deposit the said amount in the executing court within the time granted by this Court. Learned counsel states that petitioner will deposit the said amount within two days in the executing court. The submission is recorded. What remains is whether order for detention of petitioner in the Civil prison for 10 days should stand. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am pursued to think that detention in the court till the rising of the court is sufficient in the subject. C.R.P.NO. 363 OF 2010 4 Resultantly, revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines: 1. Petitioner is permitted to deposit Rs.4,180/- (Rupees four thousand one hundred and eighty only), in the executing court for payment to respondents on or before 3.9.2010. 2. The order for detention of petitioner in the Civil prison for 10 days is modified. Petitioner shall undergo detention till the rising of the court (in the executing court) for which purpose petitioner shall appear in the executing court on 4.9.2010. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm