IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 254 of 2011() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2011 IN EP.NO. 226/2005 IN O.S.NO.1640/2011 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTORS/ DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.LATE MOOSA, KAVANAD HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 30. 2. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.LATE MOOSA, KAVANAD HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 30. 3. PAREED, S/O.LATE MOOSA, KAVANAD HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 30. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.M.A.HAKEEM SHAH RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------------ PARVATHY PRABHAKARAN, W/O.PRABHAKARAN, PANACKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, TRIKKANARVATTOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.KADUTHA, KOCHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 30. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.254 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S.No.1640 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The decree was put in execution by filing E.P.No.226 of 2005. The decree was challenged in appeal as A.S.No.204 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam by the defendants. The appeal was dismissed. The defendants filed RSA No.465 of 2006 before this court. In the Second Appeal, a contention was raised by the defendants that the wall to be constructed on the northern and western sides of the 'C' schedule would affect the right to free flow of air and light to their residential house. Certain other objections were also raised. The objections were considered by this court and the Second Appeal was C.R.P.No.254 OF 2011 2 disposed of. The operative portion of the judgment in Second Appeal reads as follows: “2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the only grievance of the appellants is that if at all any construction of the walls on the western and northern boundaries of 'C' schedule is proceeded with, on the basis of the decree granted in the suit, it should comply with the Building Rules applicable and such construction should not hamper or obstruct the enjoyment of light and air to the residential building of the defendants situate to the north of that property as enjoyed now. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff fairly submitted that the basement of the construction of the boundary walls shall be confined to the 'C' schedule and the walls to be put up on its northern and western shall not exceed height of five feet from the ground level. Submission so made is accepted as sufficient to allay the apprehension canvassed by the counsel for the appellants. The decree granted shall be operative subject to the concession made by the respondent/plaintiff as indicated above. Submissions made by the counsel on both sides as above are recorded, and the appeal is disposed confirming the decree rendered by the courts below with the modification that the boundary walls on the northern and western sides of 'C' schedule shall be put up only as submitted and recorded. Both sides are directed to suffer their costs.” 2. In the Execution Proceedings, the Executing Court C.R.P.No.254 OF 2011 3 noticed the modification brought out by the second appellate judgment and allowed the Execution Proceedings subject to the modifications made in the Second Appeal. The court appointed the Amin for construction of the compound wall under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner. It was specified that the height of the wall shall be 5 feet from the ground level on the northern and western side of the 'C' schedule property. This direction is perfectly in consonance with the judgment in the Second Appeal. 3. The judgment debtors challenge the order passed by the Executing Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the construction of the compound wall should be in accordance with the Building Rules. He submitted that such a contention was put forward in the Second Appeal and it was accepted. On a perusal of paragraph 2 of the judgment in the Second C.R.P.No.254 OF 2011 4 Appeal, it is clear that the only modification made was regarding the height of the compound wall. No other directions were issued. The court is empowered to execute the decree passed by it, as modified in Second Appeal. The judgment debtors are bound by the decree. The order passed by the Executing Court is perfectly legal and valid. No grounds are made out for interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms