IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25958 of 2009(O) -------------------------- E.P.NO.761/06 IN OS.1824/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SANKUNNY, S/O.MARASSARY NEELAKANDAN, ALAGAPPANGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MS.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEVASSY @ WILSON, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, MECHERRYPADI HOUSE, ALAGAPPANGAAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE,. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SUNDARAN, S/O.MARASSARY NEELAKANDAN, ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. SUBRAMANYAN, S/O.MARASSARY NEELAKANDAN, ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. GANESH, S/O..MARASSARY NEELAKANDAN ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25958 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DECREE IN O.S.NO.1824/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P2: EXECUTION PETITION E.P.NO.761/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P3: OBJECTION FILED BY THE 5TH DEFENDANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.761/2006. EXT.P4: E.A.NO.655/2009, FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.761/2006. EXT.P6: ORDER DATED 04.07.2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA IN E.A.NO.665/2009 IN E.P.NO.761/2006 IN O.S.NO.1824/2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25958 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.437 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 2 to 4 in the above suit and the first respondent, additional fifth defendant in the suit. In the above suit, resisting the suit claim defendants 1 to 4 (petitioner and respondents 2 to 4) have raised a counter claim against the plaintiff, who has not been made a party in the present writ petition for fixation of the boundary of their property and also for an injunction. The suit was dismissed, but, the counter claim was allowed. Pursuant thereto, these defendants (defendants 1 to 4) as decree holders moved for execution. In the execution proceedings fifth defendant raised objections. Ext.P3 is stated to be the copy of his objections. Pending execution proceedings the decree holders (defendants 1 to 4) and also the plaintiff entered into a compromise and the decree holders installed some concrete posts in the eastern boundary of their property. A W.P.(C).No.25958 of 2009 - O 2 statement was filed by the decree holders before the court that the decree was satisfied, and the execution petition was dismissed as not pressed. Fifth defendant/first respondent herein, thereupon filed two applications contending that there was excessive execution of the decree by encroaching upon a pathway causing obstruction to his enjoyment of that way. He therefore sought for restoring the status quo ante and also for initiating contempt proceedings against the decree holders (defendants 1 to 4). The applications were resisted by the petitioner and other codefendants (decree holders) in which they also challenged the maintainability of the petitions. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides passed Ext.P6 order holding that the applications are maintainable. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Though notice was given to the respondents none of them has entered appearance. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.25958 of 2009 - O 3 3. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel, I find no interference with that order is called for. The court below has negatived the objections raised challenging the maintainability of the applications moved by the first respondent that there was excessive execution of the decree causing injury to him. Prima facie, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff holding that the question raised fall within the ambit of Section 47 of the CPC. That being so, no interference with that order is called for and the writ petition is closed. Whatever objections the petitioner has against the applications as provided by law, needless to point out, can be agitated in appropriate proceedings. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-