Pathrose vs M.M.Sam @ Mathew Sam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3791 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                       CRP.No.46 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2020 IN EA NO.124/2020 IN EP NO.
     93/2019 IN OS 152/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

                          -----------


 PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

             PATHROSE
             AGED 57 YEARS
             S/O.PAILY, CHEMMALA HOUSE, VILANGU KARA,
             KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 562

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
             SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
             SRI.E.S.FIROS
             SMT.AMRUTHA K.P.

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS:

      1      M.M.SAM @ MATHEW SAM
             AGED 56 YEARS
             S/O.EASHO MATHEW, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, VILANGU KARA,
             KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-683 562

      2      BEENA GEORGE
             AGED 51 YEARS
             W/O.MM SAM @ MATHEW SAM, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, VILANGU
             KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK-
             683 562


     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                     SATHISH NINAN, J.
           ==================
                  C. R. P. No.46 of 2021
           ==================
          Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2021


                              ORDER

Order granting police assistance for execution

of a decree is under challenge in this civil

revision petition by the judgment debtor.

2. An Advocate Commissioner was deputed for

construction of a boundary wall on the eastern side

of the decree 'B' schedule property. The contention

of the revision petitioner-judgment debtor is that

the decree holder, under cover of execution of the

decree, is attempting to put up a boundary wall up to the Panchayat Road on the south; the same is

beyond the scope of the decree.

3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the

order impugned, the boundary wall has been

constructed in execution of the decree.

4. It shall be open for the revision petitioner

to voice his grievance regarding excess execution

in a proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of C. R. P. No.46 of 2021

Civil Procedure. Leaving open the said right of the

revision petitioner, the Civil Revision Petition is

closed. In such a proceeding, the court shall enter

findings uninfluenced by the order impugned in this

Civil Revision Petition.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge CRP.No.46 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 26/10/2016 IN OS 152/2010

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27/8/2019 IN RSA 331/2019 OF KERALA HIGH COURT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF DECREE PLAN WHICH IS ENLARGED SHOWING THE LOCATION WHERE THE COMPOUND WALL IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/2/2020 IN OP(CIVIL) 3386/2019

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9/3/2020 IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF DELIVERY REPORT IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF EA 124/2020 IN IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EA 124/2020 IN EP 93/2019 IN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

-------------