IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 591 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.305/2007 IN OS.787/1994 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------ REMANY, W/O.R.KRISHNAN, ATTAPPALLY KIZHAKKEMADAM, CUTHCERRY WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. H.K.G.PILLAI, PROPRIETRIX QUILON GAS SERVICE, L.P.G. DISTRIBUTOR THAMARAKULAM WARD P.O. KOLLAM. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O.H.K.G.PILLAI, QUILON GAS SERVICE, L.P.G.DISTRIBUTOR, THAMARAKULAM WARD, KOLLAM. 3. REVEEDNRA KUMAR, SREE VIHAR, NEAR GOVERNMENT H.S., VARKALA P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.1746/2008 IN CRP NO.591/2008 14.8.2008 Dismissed Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P No.591 of 2008 ======================= Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam in E.P.305/2007 in O.S.787/1994. Execution Petition was filed to remove the gate put up by respondents contending that as per the decree one of the keys of the gate is to be given to the decree holder forthwith and on failure decree holder is entitled to get the gate removed. Second judgment debtor before the executing court produced the key of the gate. Learned Munsiff as per the impugned order dismissed the execution petition holding that eventhough the key was not given forthwith as directed, when the key was given and there is no obstruction caused to the decree holders in using decree B schedule pathway, there is no necessity to remove the gate as sought for, and gate is necessary to protect the CRP No.591/2008 2 property. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that the direction in the decree was to give the key forthwith and executing court is not entitled to go behind the decree. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this court under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. What is provided in the decree is to protect the right of the decree holder to use the B schedule pathway and for that purpose the judgment debtors were directed to give the key of the gate so that right to use the B schedule pathway is not obstructed. Though key was not given forthwith, when the key was given to the decree holder before the executing court, there is no necessity to remove the gate as sought for. If the case is that B schedule pathway is in any way obstructed, petitioner is entitled to CRP No.591/2008 3 approach the executing court for appropriate remedy. Civil Revision Petition is disposed accordingly. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008