IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 584 of 2008(T) ------------------------ AS.7/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI EP.255/2004 IN OS.442/1992 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VAVACHAN, AGED 56, S/O.XAVIER, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELLANAM VILLAGE, COCHIN TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.C.JOSEPH (DIED), AGED 56, S/O.CHOWRI, PALATHARA HOUSE, WARD IV, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 2. CICILY JOSEPH, 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, PALATHARA HOUSE, WARD IV, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 3. GEORGE (JOY), AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, WARD IV, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 4. SEBASTIAN (KUNJUMON) AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, PALATHARA HOUSE, IV WARD, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 5. LUCY, 43 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, PALIATHARA HOUSE, IV WARD, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 6. PHILOMINA, AGED 36, D/O.P.C.JOSEPH, PALIATHARA HOUSE, IV WARD, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 7. ANTONY (ANTOJI), AGED 29, S/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, PALIATHARA HOUSE, IV WARD, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. 8. FRANCIS, (BABU), AGED 27, S/O.LATE P.C.JOSEPH, PALIATHARA HOUSE, IV WARD, CHELLANAM PANCHAYATH, KOCHI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 584 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kochi, in EP 255/04 in OS 442/92. It was an execution petition filed by the defendant in the suit on the ground that the appellate court while disposing of the appeal had made it clear that the respondent can use the pathway in the plaint scheduled property (pathway having four feet width set apart by the appellants) and the decree for injunction will not prevent them from using it. This was the direction given in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit. Whatever it may be, it is not a portion which forms part of a decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff, which is capable of being executed. What the appellate court has done is to maintain the entitlement of the defendant to use the pathway as described therein, this cannot be executed by way of an execution of the decree in a suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not find any mistake committed by the court below. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If there are any other legal remedies available, the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in their way of pursuing the same. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps