REV FR PAULOSE Vs. SAHJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) Petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No. 69/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction against four defendants, who are the respondents 1 to 4 in the present petition, restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule properties and from constructing any shed in such properties. A decree in favour of the plaintiff was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule properties other than A schedule item No. 2 described in the plaint. Ext. P1 is the copy of the decree in the suit. Nearly, 12 years after passing of Ext. P1 decree, petitioner/decree holder filed an execution petition seeking a sum of Rs. 53311/- with 12% interest from the 4th judgment-debtor, for her arrest and attachment of her property and such other proceedings against the other judgment- debtors impleading all four defendants in the suit in such petition. The judgment-debtors appeared before the Court and resisted the reliefs claimed in the petition. Petitioner/decree holder thereupon moved two more petitions, one for attachment of the property of the judgment- debtors and another for appointment of a commission to assess the damages purported to have been caused by the judgment-debtors violating the decree of injunction. In the execution proceedings on the application moved by the decree-holder two more persons, including a public officer, a Tahsildar, were impleaded as additional judgment-debtors. Learned sub Judge considering the applications moved by the decree-holder for appointment of a commission and attachment along with the execution petition, after hearing all the parties, passed a common order dismissing them and also the execution petition. Ext. P3 is the copy of the order. This writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of that order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard the counsel for the petitioner/decreeholder.