IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 291 of 2006()
1. E.G. OMANA AMMA, W/O.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NIRAVATH KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
======================================
C.R.P.No.291 of 2006
======================================
Dated this the 12th day of February 2009
ORDER
The judgment debtor in O.S.No.15 of 1987 on the file of the
Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Sulthan Bathery is the revision
petitioner. The respondent is the decree holder. The suit was decreed on
29.3.1996. Alleging that on 15.1.2003, the judgment debtor and her
children trespassed into the suit property and destroyed the bund, the
respondent filed E.P.No.85 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code
of Civil Procedure for enforcement of the decree. By order passed on
22.3.2006, execution court held that the petitioner has willfully failed to
obey the decree by demolishing the bund. She was accordingly directed
to reconstruct the bund failing which the decree holder was permitted to
reconstruct the same and to realise the cost of construction from the
judgment debtor. The execution court also ordered that if the judgment
debtor fails to reconstruct the bund within one month, she shall be
detained in the civil prison for a period of 15 days. The said order is
under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
2. I have heard Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. During the course of the arguments,
Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
C.R.P.No.291 of 2006 2
submitted that the respondent had to incur an expenditure of Rs.700/-
to reconstruct the bund since the petitioner did not comply with the
direction issued by the execution court and that the respondent has no
objection to the order directing the petitioner to be detained in the civil
prison being set aside, if she pays the said sum of Rs.700/= and also a
reasonable amount as compensation. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to reimburse the said
sum of Rs.700/- and also pay a reasonable amount as compensation to
the respondent and that the order passed by the execution court below
may be suitably modified by deleting the order to detain the petitioner in
civil prison in the event of default of compliance with the order passed by
the execution court.
3. The petitioner is a woman aged more than 72 years. Though
she did not comply with the order passed by the execution court to
restore the bund within one month, she has now expressed willingness
to reimburse the expenses incurred by the respondent and to pay him a
reasonable amount as compensation. In view of submissions made at
the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side, I feel that the
ends of justice will be met if the petitioner pays to the respondent the
sum of Rs.1,500/- in all towards the cost of construction of the bund
and compensation.
4. I accordingly direct that in the event of the petitioner paying to
C.R.P.No.291 of 2006 3
the respondent the sum of Rs.1500/- on or before 16.3.2009, the order
passed by the court below directing her detention in the civil prison, if
she does not reconstruct the bund at her cost within the stipulated time,
shall stand set aside. Payment as directed above shall be made to the
respondent in person or to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent in this Court. The petitioner shall after such payment, file a
memo in this Court, within another two weeks. On such deposit being
made, the order passed by the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of
Sulthan Bathery in E.P.No.85 of 2004 shall stand set aside and the
Execution Petition shall stand dismissed.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/
