IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25455 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SYED ALAVIA JIFRIYA, D/O. SYED FAZAL JIFRI MAB MUKHIYA, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI .S. SUNDERRAJ, ADV. SMT. K.K. PREETHA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MUHAMMATH, S/O. KUTTI ALI, KULAPPURATH PADIKKAL, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. BASHEER, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUTTI ALI, KULAPPURATH PADIKKAL, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25455 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.341 of 1997 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. Under Ext.P1 judgment dated 4.7.2002, a compromise decree was passed in terms of the agreement executed by the parties. Under the agreement a duty was cast to avoid stagnation of water in the plaint A schedule property belonging to the petitioner. When the terms of the agreement was not complied with, E.P.93 of 2003 was filed before Munsiff Court. Respondents approached this Court by filing CRP.901 of 2007, which was disposed under Ext.P2 order. That order was passed at the admission stage without hearing the petitioner. Petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by filing WP(C) 8664 of 2008. That was also disposed without hearing respondents, under Ext.P3 judgment. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the executing Court to implement only the second limb of Ext.P1 agreement. WP(C)25455/08 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that Ext.P4 memo was filed before the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by the Court in the execution petition as this Court directed the Commissioner to seek direction from this Court and the first limb of the agreement cannot be implemented, a direction is to be issued. I do not find it proper for this Court to give any such direction. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the executing Court for appropriate order. If any such application is filed, learned Munsiff to hear the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-