PAYYARATH ILLATH SHYLAJA Vs. T V JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent decree holder. A decree for injunction was passed against petitioner. Respondent filed E.P.179/03 under Order XXI 35 of Code of Civil procedure alleging wilful violation of the decree for injunction. Petitioner disputed the identity and alleged violation of the decree. A Commission was appointed. The Commissioner originally submitted an interim report and thereafter a final report. Decree holder filed E.A.120/06 and E.A.134/06 applications to condone the delay and to remit the report back to the Commissioner. It was objected to by petitioner. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff allowed the applications and remitted the report back to the Commissioner which is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard.

(3.) The argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that neither the decree nor the agreement show the side measurements and respondent wanted the property to be identified with reference to side measurements furnished by the respondent, which is unauthorized and in such circumstance, the learned Munsiff should not have remitted the report to file a report after measuring the properties on the basis of the side measurements. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that petitioner wanted the decree schedule property to be identified with the assistance of the Surveyor as the Commissioner reported that side measurements are not available, court has only directed Commissioner to identify the property with reference to side measurements and that too with the assistance of the village Assistant and in such circumstance, no interference is called for.