WILSON P. KURIAKOSE Vs. SUBHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree holders against the order in E.A. No. 57 of 1999 in E.P. No. 39 of 1997 in O.S. No. 257 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Moovattupuzha. The revision petitioners are the decree holders in the above said suit. The suit is filed for a decree of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the earthern pipe which was put in the property of the decree holders for draining foul water from the hotel of the second judgment debtor. The suit was decreed and the second judgment debtor was granted one year time to remove the earthern pipe unauthorisedly put by him. Even after the expiration of one year, the second judgment debtor did not remove the pipe and hence, the revision petitioners filed E.P. 39 of 1997 for execution of the decree.

(2.) THE second judgment debtor filed objection and contested the execution petition. On consideration of the objection, the Execution Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to remove the earthern pipe which was put in the property of the decree holders. When the Advocate Commissioner went to the spot, he was obstructed by one M.M. Thomas, brother-in-law of the second Judgment Debtor Onachan at the instance of the second judgment debtor claiming that his wife Mary was the owner of the property in which the hotel was situates. While so, the additional judgment debtor filed a suit as O.S. No. 235 of 1997 before the Munsiff's Court, Moovattupuzha along with one Narayanan Nair for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners from causing any obstruction to the draining of the waste water from the hotel. The allegation was that the hotel was being conducted by them and the petitioner is trying to remove the pipe which was used for draining waste water from their hotel. The suit was subsequently dismissed as not pressed.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the respondent filed another Original Petition before this Court for a direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, the revision petitioners and the Advocate Commissioner against removing the pipe line. The Advocate Commissioner on receiving the notice declined to take any further action in the matter. Subsequently, the Original Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed O.S. No. 273 of 1999 against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction restraining them from causing any obstruction to the draining of the waste water from his property. No interim order was passed by the trial court in the said suit.