IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 119 of 2010(O) --------------------- {IN WPC.33813/2009 OF THIS COURT} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEELATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL SHADULI, S/O. LATE K.P.MAMMEED, MANIYOOR, KOLACHERRY POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. THAYATHUNKANDI ABDU, S/O. PAKKER, AGED 65 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, KAMBIL DESOM, RESIDING AT PANNYANKANDIYIL M.P.HOUSE. 2. C.M.MOIDEEN HAJI, S/O. MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, KAMBIL AMSOM, NALAMEEDIKA. 3. C.K.PATHUMMA, W/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 60 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 4. C.K.MAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 5. ALEEMA, AGED 30 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 6. HAMZA, AGED 28 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. RP.No. 119 of 2010(O) :: 2 :: 7. AHAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 8. ABOOBACKER, AGED 21 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 9. NAFEESA, AGED 21 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 10. SHERIFFA, AGED 24 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 11. KHADEEJA, AGED 17 YEARS, KOLANCHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM. 12. P.M.ABOOBACKER, S/O. ABDU, AGED 44 YEARS, TEACHER, KLANCHERY, MANIYOOR. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.119 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33813 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. O R D E R Petitioner in the writ petition has filed the above review petition to review the judgment dated 7.12.2009 passed by this court disposing of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed for issue of a writ, direction or order to the Subordinate Court - the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur, to dispose of an execution petition filed by the petitioner within a time limit fixed by this court. After hearing the counsel for the writ petitioner, the decree holder in the execution petition, noticing that the decree sought to be executed with the assistance of police from court was one passed in a suit for fixation of the boundary, the execution court was directed to examine whether any executable decree had been passed in the suit. The petitioner/decree holder wanted to put up boundaries of his property on the basis of the decree granted in the suit fixing his R.P.No.119 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33813 of 2009 :: 2 :: boundaries with the assistance of police canvassing a case that the judgment debtors are obstructing him to put up such boundaries. There was no dispute that the decree for fixation of the boundary was granted after trial after deputing an advocate commissioner and preparing a plan fixing the boundaries of the suit property. When the relief canvassed in the suit and decree granted was confined to fixation of boundaries alone, whether such a decree could be put in execution for the purpose of putting up boundaries when no executable decree thereof has been granted in the suit was directed to be considered by the execution court before proceeding any further in the matter. Now in the review petition, the petitioner seeks for removing the above observations made in the judgment of this court so that he may pursue with the steps for execution of the decree before the court below. R.P.No.119 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33813 of 2009 :: 3 :: I do not find any merit in the review petition. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted before me that since the relief canvassed in the writ petition was confined to seeking the issue of a writ, order or direction for an expeditious disposal of the execution proceedings, the directions issued by this court in the manner indicated above were superfluous and not called for. I cannot agree. In exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court is empowered to supervise and correct any infirmity in the proceedings or any order or judgment passed by an inferior court, when that has been brought before this court either by a party or comes to its notice otherwise. Since this court has noticed that the execution court was duty bound to examine the executability of the decree which is sought to be executed before proceeding with R.P.No.119 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33813 of 2009 :: 4 :: the steps for execution at the instance of the petitioner/decree holder, the directions as indicated above had been issued to the Subordinate Court. There is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.