IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1332 of 2008(H) ------------------------- E.P.NO.142/2000 IN OS.53/1986 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KESAVAN ACHARI KRISHNANKUTTY AHCARI CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,THEKKUMPURATH MURI NEDUVATHOOR VILALGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PONNAMMA,W/O. THANKAPPAN ACHARI, BIJU MANDIRAM, KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PADINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,THEKKUMPURATHU MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT, 2. THANKAPPAN ACHARI BIJU,BIJU MANDIRAM, KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PADINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKUMPURATHU MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THANKAPPAN ACHARI BINU, BIJU MANDIRAM, KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PADINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKUMPURATHU MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THANKAPPAN ACHARI BAIJU, BIJU MANDIRAM, KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PADINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKUMPURATHU MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 1332/2008/H -2- 5. THANKAPPAN ACHARI SANTHOSH, BIJU MANDIRAM, KOIKKAL BHAGAM MURI, PADINJARE KALLADA VILLAGE FROM CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKUMPURATHU MURI, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1332/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE DECREE O.S.NO.53/86 DATED 31-3-1986 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.53/86 DATED 31-3-1986 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE DEED NO.821/71 DATED 22-3-1971 OF KOTTARAKKARA SRO. EXT. P4: COPY OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION IN CONSUMER NO.3418 DATED 21-2-85 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE PRESIDENT, NEDUVATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT. P6: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT. P7: COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-11-07 IN E.P. NO.142/2000 IN O.S.NO.53/86 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT. P8: COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 1332 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside the order passed by the Munsiff, Kottarakkara in E.P.142/00 in O.S.53/1986. It is an application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 to execute the decree for a permanent injunction. Order 21 Rule 32 deals with a decree for injunction as well. It is always a prerogative of the Court to put the winning party into the correct position. The Court below considered the matter in detail and also had taken into consideration the contentions of the defendants that they were residing in the property even prior to the institution of the suit. The Court held that, after an enquiry, with the defendants on record the Court entered into a clear finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and therefore granted a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. It is the duty of the Court to see that the said decree is respected and obeyed by W.P.C 1332 OF 2008 -:2:- the parties who are bound by it. Raising a contention that they were in possession prior to the institution of the suit after the decree has been passed by the Court cannot be entertained. If a person was aggrieved by a decision of a civil Court certainly he should have taken up the matter before the appellate court to get it reversed or nullified. When a judgment and decree of a civil Court has become conclusive it has to be respected and it is the duty of the Court to see that it is implemented. This is what is precisely done by the Court below. The Court found that from the very contention of the defendants that they are still in possession of the property thereby violated the order of judgment and decree of the Court. 2. The Court also gave some breathing time to the first judgment debtor to vacate the premises so that he can escape the punishment for violation of the injunction decree. I think the Court has been considerate and kind and I hope the first defendant will obey the directions of the Court below but I grant him three weeks further time for surrendering W.P.C 1332 OF 2008 -:3:- vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and the house therein and if he does so I direct the Court below not to further punish him for the violation of the decree. If any other application is pending before that Court, it is for that Court to consider and pass appropriate orders and for that I do not express any opinion on that. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-