ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. V.A.THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 17th day of September, 2012 Order The suit O.S.No.787 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff of Ernakulam was decreed by judgment dated 28.09.1999 as follows: "The suit is decreed restraining the defendant and his men perpetually from reconstructing or repairing the plaint B schedule shed and from making any addition or alteration to the A schedule building. By way of mandatory injunction, the defendant is also directed to demolish and remove the plaint B schedule shed within a period of 2 months from today, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to have it removed through court at the expenses of the defendant." The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment debtor and the respondent herein is the decree holder in the suit referred to above.

(2.) The decree holder had earlier filed E.P.No.44 of 2010 to demolish the plaint B schedule shed whereupon the judgment debtor offered to remove it by himself. E.P.No.44 of 2010 was eventually closed even though there is lingering dispute as to whether the plaint 'B' schedule shed is now in existence or not. The present Civil Revision Petition concerns the execution of that part of the decree which pertains to the plaint A schedule building. The parties at that point of time were governed by Ext.B9 lease deed to which the decree holder and the judgment debtor were parties. The lease deed specifically contains a stipulation that 'necessary repairs and maintenance shall be done by the lessor'. This obviously means that the lessee/judgment debtor has no right to do the necessary repairs and maintenance. Added to this is the term of the decree extracted above which specifically restrains the judgment debtor from making any addition or alteration to the plaint A schedule building. The short point that arises in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the judgment -debtor has effected any 'additions' or 'alterations' to the plaint A schedule building in violation of the decree. E.P.No.453 of 2010 has been filed by the decree holder in this connection to punish the judgment debtor for having violated the terms of the decree referred to above.

(3.) An Advocate Commissioner was deputed in E.P.No.453 of 2010 who filed Exts.C1, C2, C5 and C6 reports on various dates as regards violation of the decree. Ext.C1 report dated 13.12.2010 reveals the following facts: (i) Fresh cutting of marble flooring with machine cutter. (ii) Marking on the side walls parallel to draw concealed water pipes. (iii) Bundle of PVC pipes stored outside along with two sintex water tanks kept outside. Ext.C2 report dated 7.1.2011 reveals the following facts: (i) New false ceiling made with gypsum fixed over the old plywood ceiling. (ii) Holes made in the side walls through which water pipes have been drawn. (iii) Two sintex tanks earlier kept outside have been loaded and kept above the false ceiling. Ext.C5 report dated 7.4.2011 reveals the following facts: (i) The additional fittings are removable. (ii) The fittings are on the existing interior dicor. Ext.C6 report dated29.10.2011 reveals the following facts: (i) Vitrified tiles pasted on the marble flooring are removable.