ABUBACKER KUNJU Vs. DEVAKI D/O.GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the judgment debtors in E.P. No.3 of 2011 in O.S. No.220 of 1995 of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Though the trial court dismissed the suit, this Court granted a decree in favour of the respondents by Ext.P1, judgment whereby it was directed that in case of necessity to deliver the property mentioned as 'DEFGH' in Ext.C2, plan and for the same the Amin deputed, he can be helped by an Advocate Commissioner who prepared Ext.C2, plan and if there is no demarcating wall on the 'DEF' line, the Commissioner can put up a wall at the expenses of the respondents so that it can also be resolved.

(2.) PURSUANT to that decree, the respondents filed E.P. No.3 of 2011 alleging that there is trespass. The executing court appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted Ext.P2, report where it is stated that there is a boundary wall on the 'DEF' line and that there is trespass on the 'GH & HD' line by the office bearers of Sree Dharmasastha Temple. In view of that report, the executing court passed Ext.P4, order which is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(3.) I have gone through Ext.P4, order. It is seen that the respondents requested assistance of a Taluk Surveyor to assist the Advocate Commissioner. That request was allowed and notice was issued to the Taluk Surveyor and the Advocate Commissioner to execute the decree by 14.01.2013.