VISALAKSHMI; SAKTHIVEL; IYYAPPAN; SADAYAPPAN; SIVANANTHAM Vs. D THIRUMURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order made in E.A.No.174 of 2010 in E.P.No.22 of 2009 in O.S.No.762 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit property and also to fix the boundaries of the same, was rejected on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the decree passed by the trial court.

(2.) The petitioners herein as the plaintiffs have filed the said suit in O.S.No.762/2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani, seeking for permanent injunction against the respondent herein. The said suit came to be decreed on 03.12.2004. Accordingly, the decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the petitioners was granted by the trial court. The petitioners herein in pursuant to the said decree filed E.P.No.22/2009 by contending that the decree granted by the trial court has been violated by the respondent/defendant. In the said E.P., the present application in E.A.No.174/2010 was filed by the petitioners for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for measuring the suit property and also to fix the boundaries so as to establish her contention that the respondent herein has violated the decree. In the said application, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 21.09.2010. However, the said application was taken up for disposal by the court below further and upon considering the fact that the scope of the application goes beyond the scope of the decree passed, the court below has rejected the same by observing that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved they have to separately agitate the matter by filing another civil suit and when the decree is for bare injunction, without there being any further direction, for measuring the suit property or for fixing the boundaries, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. I find that the reasons stated by the court below for rejecting the application are justifiable and consequently, the order passed by it does not warrant any interference. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioners was for bare injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A description of the suit property was given in the schedule and the suit has been decreed. If there is any dispute with regard to the boundaries or with regard to the extent of the suit property, then it is a separate cause of action on which the petitioners have to agitate in a separate proceeding only and cannot seek such relief before the executing court which is bound to act only in accordance with the decree and not beyond the scope of the same. The executing court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking for measuring the suit properties as well as fixing the boundaries of the same. Accordingly, the civil revision petition does not have any merits and consequently, the same is dismissed. Needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to file separate suit for establishing their right over the suit property by filing appropriate proceedings. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.