SHERLY Vs. HARI KUMAR, SREEDHARAN AND ABHILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents are served but they remain absent. Ext. P5, order dated 04.09.2012 in E.P. No. 59 of 2011 in O.S. No. 123 of 2000 of Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara to the extent it did not direct respondents to restore plaint A schedule to its original position is under challenge in this proceedings.

(2.) Petitioners have obtained Ext. P1, judgment and Ext. P2, decree in their favour as per which respondents are restrained form trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, destroying its boundary Kayyala, annexing any portion of plaint A schedule to the plaint B schedule path way, cutting down and removing trees from the plaint A schedule and against committing any other act of waste and mischief in the said property.

(3.) Alleging that respondents and men in violation of Ext. P2, decree trespassed into the plaint A schedule and committed mischief by removing a portion of plaint A schedule for widening plaint B schedule way on 18.09.2011, petitioner filed E.P. No. 59 of 2011 under Rule 32 of order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the code) praying, inter alia that respondents may be directed to restore plaint A schedule to its original position and in case they do not do so, permit petitioners to do so and realise its expenses from the respondents.