5.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the revision petitioners originally obtained decree for permanent injunction in O.S.No.434 of 2009 before the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, against the respondent, on 16.08.2010. Subsequently, the revision petitioners filed another suit in O.S.No.176 of 2012, before the I Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, for mandatory injunction to remove the shed unlawfully constructed in the northern side of plaint schedule property, since the respondent violated the decree passed in O.S.No.434 of 2009 and put up a shed. Though the respondent herein has filed a written statement, she did not participate in the trial and hence, decree was passed against her. The respondent has not taken any steps to set aside the said decree passed on merits in O.S.No.434 of 2009. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Principal District Munsif, cannot decide the execution application as one of appeal and the only course open to the respondent is to file an appeal against the decree passed in O.S.No.176 of 2012 and not file a claim petition. The respondent, having been a party to the above two suits and having not made out any case, is not entitled to file this application under Section 47 of CPC. Further the learned counsel would submit that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and it has to execute the decree, whereas the Executing Court, without considering the legal as well as the factual position, dismissed the execution petition and also allowed execution application, which warrants interference of this Court.
