(1.) JUDGMENT debtors 1, 4 and 6 in O.S.No.285 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Perumbavoor challenge the order dated 12th April, 2011 in E.A.No.43 of 2010 in E.P.No.4 of 2009 in O.S.No.285 of 2005.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the first respondent for mandatory injunction to restore the plaint B schedule item No.1 thodu and for permanent prohibitory injunction. THE suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2008. Since the thodu was not restored, the decree holder filed E.P.No.4 of 2009 to execute the decree. A commissioner was appointed to restore the thodu. THE thodu was restored in part in the presence of the Commissioner. At that time, the Commissioner was obstructed by the judgment debtors. THE Commissioner filed a report before the court. Police aid was ordered for execution of the work. At that juncture, judgment debtors 1, 4 and 6 filed E.A.No.43 of 2010 for a direction to the Commissioner to execute the work only after identifying the plaint B schedule item No.1. THE contention of judgment debtors 1, 4 and 6 is that the plaint B schedule item No.1 was not identified by the Commissioner at the trial stage and therefore, without identifying the same, the decree cannot be executed.
(3.) THE judgment debtors tried their level best to obstruct the execution of the decree. THEy even caused obstruction to the work done by the Commissioner. Even after restoration of a portion of the thodu by the Commissioner, the judgment debtors again filled the same. THEse facts would indicate that the petitioners have no respect for law or for any order or decree passed by the court. THEy put forward all sorts of contentions to protract the proceedings and to delay the execution of the decree. THE Executing Court rightly rejected their contentions. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. THE order passed by the court below is legal and proper. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed.