IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 862 of 2008(A) --------------------------------- [E.P. 86/08 AND EA.135/08 IN OS. NO.12/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA] .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ ASSIGNEE JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, OLIYAPPURATHU HOUSE, THRIKKA, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. O.K.RAVI, AGED 40 YEARS, ORAVAKKUZHI PUTHENPURA HOUSE, MARKET PO., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SWAPNA, W/O.O.K.RAVI, ORAVAKKUZHI PUTHEN PURA HOUSE, MARKET P.O., VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 4. OMANA, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.MOHANAN, OLIYAPPURATHU HOUSE, THRIKKA, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SABU FRANCIS. RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOLLY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.PETER, NADUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. T.U.ANTONY @ BABY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VELLORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. MARY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O.ANTONY, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VELLORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. C.R.P. NO. 862/2008-A: 4. JOHN BABY THOTTAM, S/O.T.U.ANTONY, AGED 31 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, VELLORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. MR.PAUL K.VARGHESE, R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.R.P. NO. 862/2008-A: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2749/2008 IN C.R.P. NO.862/2008-A DISMISSED 16/09/2009. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.862 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 31/10/2008 in E.P No.86 of 2008 in O.S No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Moovattupuzha. The above suit was decreed in terms of the compromise entered by the parties. Pursuant thereto, from the second defendant in the suit the present revision petitioners got assignment of some property. The first respondent, the decree holder, alleging violation of the decree which included a prohibitory injunction as well against the defendants in the suit moved the execution petition before the court. The court below after hearing both sides passed the order impugned in the revision directing for providing police protection to the decree holder for protection of his decree C.R.P.No.862 OF 2008 Page numbers schedule property. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order impugned in the revision, I find the court below has not examined the question whether the judgment debtors or assignees who too are bound by the decree had in any way violated the prohibitory injunction granted under the decree. There is no reference in the order as to what was the decree granted and in what manner it was violated by the judgment debtors in the proceedings. Needless to point out when a decree of injunction is violated, execution will lie to compel obedience by the persons who are bound by the decree by taking appropriate proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, the court can pass orders in such proceedings as required to be found necessary to enforce the decree of injunction. However, any such order can be passed only after entering a C.R.P.No.862 OF 2008 Page numbers finding that there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience of the decree of injunction by the parties proceeded against. Without entering a definite finding thereof it is not open to the execution court to pass any direction or order to provide police protection or any other order. The impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above and dispose the petition moved by the decree holder in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Court below shall also give top priority in hearing and disposing of the proceedings. Subject to the above directions, writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv