Revision petition by decree holders challenging dismissal of execution petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Court dismissed revision finding no ground for interference where Munsiff held execution court cannot invoke said power.
Revision petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/25TH ASWINA, 1940
CRP.No.216 of 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-12-2013 IN E.P.NO.91/2008 IN OS NO.233/2005 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S,ALAPPUZHA.
REVISION PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS/PLAINTIFFS:
(3RD REVISION PETITIONER IS THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER OF REVISION PETITIONERS 1,2,4 & 5 AND IS REPRESENTING THEM)
BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS:
C.R.P.No.216 of 2014
:: 2 ::
(THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIED ON 22.11.2013 AND THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT.)
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.R.P.No.216 of 2014
:: 3 ::
O R D E R
Against the common order dated 11.12.2013 in
E.A.No.97 of 2010 and E.P.No.91 of 2008 in
O.S.No.233 of 2005 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha, the decree holders/plaintiffs came up
with this Revision.
executing a decree granting permanent prohibitory injunction alleging that subsequent to the decree judgment debtor Nos.2 and 4 violated the decree by demolishing a portion of the boundary fencing. Another application was also filed for prosecuting the defendants for the violation of the interim order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the applications were dismissed by the execution court by the impugned order. E.P.No.91 of 2008 was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the boundary fencing was demolished by judgment debtor
C.R.P.No.216 of 2014
:: 4 ::
Nos.2 and 4. The application for prosecuting the judgment debtors for violation of the interim injunction order was dismissed on the ground that what is sought to be executed is in accordance with the mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The learned Munsiff found that the execution court cannot invoke the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Hence there is no reason for any interference by this Court.
The Revision fails. Dismissed. No costs.
Sd/
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the execution court can invoke the power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC to prosecute the judgment debtors for violation of interim order.
Whether interference by this Court is warranted in the impugned order dismissing the execution applications.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JOY XAVIER
MARYKUTTY XAVIER
THOMAS XAVIER
JACOB XAVIER
MATHEW XAVIER
UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR KRISHNALAYAM
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
