IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23830 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- O.S.NO.1606 OF 2003 OF ADDL,MUNSIFF'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. .......... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DIVAKARAN, S/O.KAITHAVALAPPIL RAMANANDAN, MARAVANCHERY DESOM, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.R.S.KALKURA, MR.M.S.KALESH, MR.HARISH GOPINATH, MR.VINAY MENON.V., MR.AJAY.M. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.KAITHAVALAPPIL RAMANANDAN, MARAVANCHERY DESOM, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23830 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing Ext.P9 and P10 orders as grossly illegal and wrong. ii) Issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P No.981 of 2007 in O.S No. 1606 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. W.P.(C).No.23830 OF 2009 Page numbers Suit was one for fixation of boundary, recovery of possession and prohibitory injunction which was decreed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. A decree of prohibitory injunction was passed restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff's use of plaint 'C' schedule for passage as well as taking vehicle to his property. Plaintiff was also allowed to fix the boundary between plaint 'C' and 'B' schedule as per Ext.C2(a) plan. The decree also provided that trees, if any, are seen standing in 'C' schedule, the same shall be cut and removed by the defendant within three months from the date of fixation of the boundary. The respondent / plaintiff filed execution petition contending that within the time limit fixed by the court the trees in the plaint 'C' schedule had not been cut and removed by the petitioner / defendant. He sought for W.P.(C).No.23830 OF 2009 Page numbers removal of the trees and fixation of the boundary through court. Petitioner filed objections resisting the execution sought for contending no decree has been granted for cutting and removal of the trees. A commissioner who prepared Ext.C2 plan on the trial side was disputed, and after inspection, he filed a report. To the report also the petitioner / judgment debtor filed objections. The learned Munsiff dismissed both the applications. Copies of those orders are Exts.P9 and P10. Propriety and correctness of Exts.P9 and P10 orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Subsequent orders passed by the court below W.P.(C).No.23830 OF 2009 Page numbers dated 04/08/2009 was produced before me by the learned counsel for the respondent. That order shows that the commissioner has been again directed to ascertain the identity of plot 'G' in Ext.C2(a) plan with the assistance of a qualified surveyor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the dispute now relates only over the removal of a pillar and the number of trees which are liable to be cut down. The petitioner has a case that some of the trees which are shown to be cut and removed fall outside 'C' schedule and he apprehends of cutting down those trees also in execution. He has therefore approached this court challenging Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 orders. The learned counsel for the decree holder submits that cutting and removal of the trees is confined to those situate in 'C' schedule as identified by the commissioner in Ext.C2(a) plan. The same W.P.(C).No.23830 OF 2009 Page numbers commissioner who prepared Ext.C2(a) plan was appointed in execution side as well and he has been directed to ascertain whether 'G' schedule comes within 'C' schedule with the assistance of a qualified surveyor. By the order dated 04/08/2009, as I find the execution court is proceeding with the matter in accordance with law to give effect to the decree and at this stage no interference with the orders passed by the execution court is called for. The writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv