KUNJU KUNJU CHANDRAN Vs. VELOUTHAKUNJU RAGHVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in E.A. No. 16/2001 in E.P. No. 2/1998, O.S. No. 231/1994, on the file of Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner. A decree of mandatory injunction was granted to the revision petitioner, directing the Judgment debtors to restore the decree scheduled property to its original position. E. P. No. 2/1998 was filed for compliance of the decree. The E.P. was dismissed, for no commission report was appended with the decree to prove prior position of the scheduled properties and therefore, it was not possible to execute the decree granted. Against that, a review application, E.A. 16/2001 was filed. That also was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) I heard both sides. The main contention of the Judgment debtor, respondent, in this revision is that, as there is no plan or commission report forming part of the decree, it will not be possible to identify the pathway in question as on 1-7-1994. Hence, the decree cannot be executed. The counsel for the revision petitioner, on the other hand, submits that Exts. C 1 and C 2, the two commission reports in the suit, clearly describe the length and width of the pathway. The same are sufficient to identify the pathway for executing the decree. The Trial Court had discussed elaborately in its judgment, the details contained in Exts. C 1 and C 2. Hence, the counsel contends that the dismissal of the E.P. as well as the review petition are against the facts and law.

(3.) A learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Parameshwarai Amma ( 1998 (2) KLT 264 ) emphasized the point that the Court could peruse the Judgment and then identify the property, if it is not possible to identify the same on the basis of the Commissioner's Report. Hence, the learned Single Judge was of the view that with the available information in the Commission report, the amin could identify the property, on the directions of the executing court.