IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 291 of 2006() -------------------------------- EP.85/2004 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, SULTHAN BATHERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- E.G. OMANA AMMA, W/O.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, KAYAKUNNU P.O., PUTHANGADI, NADAVAYAL AMSOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------- NIRAVATH KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, RAM NIVAS, PUNCHAVAYAL, PANAMARAM AMSOM, KUPPATHODE DESOM. ADV. MR.P.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== C.R.P.No.291 of 2006 ====================================== Dated this the 12th day of February 2009 ORDER The judgment debtor in O.S.No.15 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Sulthan Bathery is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the decree holder. The suit was decreed on 29.3.1996. Alleging that on 15.1.2003, the judgment debtor and her children trespassed into the suit property and destroyed the bund, the respondent filed E.P.No.85 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enforcement of the decree. By order passed on 22.3.2006, execution court held that the petitioner has willfully failed to obey the decree by demolishing the bund. She was accordingly directed to reconstruct the bund failing which the decree holder was permitted to reconstruct the same and to realise the cost of construction from the judgment debtor. The execution court also ordered that if the judgment debtor fails to reconstruct the bund within one month, she shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of 15 days. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. I have heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. During the course of the arguments, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent C.R.P.No.291 of 2006 2 submitted that the respondent had to incur an expenditure of Rs.700/- to reconstruct the bund since the petitioner did not comply with the direction issued by the execution court and that the respondent has no objection to the order directing the petitioner to be detained in the civil prison being set aside, if she pays the said sum of Rs.700/= and also a reasonable amount as compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to reimburse the said sum of Rs.700/- and also pay a reasonable amount as compensation to the respondent and that the order passed by the execution court below may be suitably modified by deleting the order to detain the petitioner in civil prison in the event of default of compliance with the order passed by the execution court. 3. The petitioner is a woman aged more than 72 years. Though she did not comply with the order passed by the execution court to restore the bund within one month, she has now expressed willingness to reimburse the expenses incurred by the respondent and to pay him a reasonable amount as compensation. In view of submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side, I feel that the ends of justice will be met if the petitioner pays to the respondent the sum of Rs.1,500/- in all towards the cost of construction of the bund and compensation. 4. I accordingly direct that in the event of the petitioner paying to C.R.P.No.291 of 2006 3 the respondent the sum of Rs.1500/- on or before 16.3.2009, the order passed by the court below directing her detention in the civil prison, if she does not reconstruct the bund at her cost within the stipulated time, shall stand set aside. Payment as directed above shall be made to the respondent in person or to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in this Court. The petitioner shall after such payment, file a memo in this Court, within another two weeks. On such deposit being made, the order passed by the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Sulthan Bathery in E.P.No.85 of 2004 shall stand set aside and the Execution Petition shall stand dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/