IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29678 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1767/1999 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALASANKARAN, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN, VADAKOOT KALAPURAYIL, AVENISSERY VILLAGE, PERINCHERY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUNDARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PUNNOKKIL RAMAN NAIR, AVANISSERY VILLAGE, PERINCHERY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. PANKAJAM, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.SUNDARAN, AVANISSERY VILLAGE, PERINCHERY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.29678 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: “To set aside the Exhibit P9 order passed by the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1767 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. In the above suit, a decree for fixation of boundary and also a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from obstructing the petitioner/plaintiff from putting up boundaries over the plaint A schedule property was granted by the court. P4 is the copy of the decree passed in the above suit in terms of the compromise entered by the parties. Compromise petition and sketch formed part of the decree passed by the court. Pursuant to the compromise decree passed, boundaries were fixed by the parties is the case of the petitioner. When a subsequent trespass over the plaint property was made by the respondents/defendants, plaintiff instituted a fresh suit, but, later, that suit was withdrawn in the light of the objections raised by the respondents that the questions covered thereby had to be W.P.C.No.29678/09 - 2 - determined under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the compromise decree already passed in the previous suit between the parties. After withdrawing the suit, the petitioner filed an execution petition canvassing the very same reliefs urged in the second suit, in which among others he sought for assistance of the court for putting up of boundaries in terms of the identification of the boundary made under the compromise decree. Since no decree for putting up of boundary was provided under the compromise decree, the execution court declined the request made by the petitioner and dismissed his execution petition. P9 is copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of P9 order is 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 learned counsel for the petitioner. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to seek for a limited relief that despite the dismissal of the execution petition under P9 order, the right of the decree holder to take appropriate proceedings against the respondents for violating the decree in encroaching upon his property and obstructing the putting up of the boundary wall may be protected by orders of this W.P.C.No.29678/09 - 3 - court. In fact, no such direction or order is required from this court since if any obstruction had been caused to the petitioner/decree holder in putting up the boundary as identified in the compromise decree violating the decree of injunction covered by that decree, naturally, the petitioner can proceed for appropriate relief before the appropriate forum as provided by law. P9 order will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking such relief, if so provided by law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE