RABIYA UMMA Vs. SULAIMAN HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for consideration in this revision is whether the dismissal of the execution petition filed by the revision petitioner under Outer XXI R.32, C.P.C. as not maintainable on the ground that it has been filed only for punitive action is sustainable in law

(2.) Revision petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No. 118 of 1987 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba. The decree is only against the first respondent in this revision and the relevant portion of it is in the following terms:

(3.) Petitioner filed E.P. No. 162 of 1991 alleging that the respondents have trespassed into the plaint B schedule property corresponding to plot 'AFGH' as shown in Ext. C2 plan and have filled up a portion of the property with earth and has obliterated the boundary separating the plot from the adjoining land in violation of the decree for injunction. On the basis of the said allegations, the petitioner prayed for an order to detain the respondents in civil prison. Second respondent was impleaded on the basis of the contention of the first defendant in an earlier E.P., namely, E.P. No. 180 of 1991 to the effect that he has assigned all his rights in the properly to the second respondent. Petitioner also prayed for issuance of a commission to inspect the property and to report about the acts alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the property in question. The Commissioner after inspection submitted an interim report seeking further directions in the matter.