IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34712 of 2008(G)
1. GIRIJA KUMARI.S, T.C.5/422, G.C.NAGAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJENDRAN, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. SHARMILA, W/O.RAJENDRAN, SHARMILA
3. ANILKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR
4. JAYAN, S/O.SHANMUGAM ASARI,T.C.5/748,
5. T.SURESH, SHARMILA VILASOM,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 34712 OF 2008 G
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
” Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside
and cancel Ext.P9 order dated 7.11.2008 in
EA.No.224 of 2008 on EP.No.106 of 2002 in
OS.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Principal
Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram.”
2. Petitioner was the 5th defendant in OS.No.1/2001 on
the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit
was originally filed by the plaintiff therein as against four
defendants including the present respondents in the writ petition,
who were the 1st and 2nd defendants in that suit. Suit was one for
injunction and putting up boundary. In that suit, petitioner got
herself impleaded as the 5th defendant and raised a counter claim.
Later, suit was compromised as between the 2nd plaintiff and the
petitioner, the 5th defendant. Suit was dismissed as against the
other defendants. A compromise decree was passed in terms of
WPC.34712/08
: 2 :
the compromise entered into by the 2nd plaintiff and the 5th
defendant. Pursuant to passing of the compromise decree, the
boundaries were put up in execution of that decree through an
Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court. Respondents 1
and 2 herein thereupon moved an application under section 47
CPC before the execution court contending that the boundary
walls have been put up encroaching upon their property
demolishing a latrine and at boundaries for which no decree was
provided in the suit. The learned Munsiff proceeded with an
enquiry into the matter and after such enquiry the impugned order
was passed directing demolition of the boundaries put up on
FGHIJ line which was put up in the presence of the Commissioner,
for which no decree was provided. The 1st and 2nd respondents
had a further case that the latrine in their property was demolished
in putting up the boundary wall, for which the court found there
was no concrete evidence and the relief claimed thereunder was
disallowed. The petitioner was directed to remove the compound
wall which had been put up with the assistance of the
Commissioner and the Amin within one month from the date of the
WPC.34712/08
: 3 :
order, in default of which respondents 1 and 2 were granted
permission to get it removed through the court realising the cost
thereof from the petitioner. Ext.P9 is the copy of the order passed
as above by the court below. Impeaching the propriety and
correctness of that order, petitioner has filed this writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having
regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances
presented with reference to the materials tendered in the writ
petition, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in the order
passed by the learned Munsiff directing for removal of the
compound wall put up in FGHIJ line by the petitioner with the
assistance of the Advocate Commissioner and the Amin in
execution of the compromise decree in which the 1st and 2nd
respondents were not parties and further the suit in which such
compromise was entered had been dismissed as against them.
The court below has found that a compound wall in the FGHIJ line
was put up under the guise of the decree that too arrived on
compromise between the petitioner with the 2nd plaintiff and not
WPC.34712/08
: 4 :
with the 1st and 2nd respondents who were also among the co-
defendants in the suit. The order would also disclose that the
putting up of the boundary was done with the assistance of police
in the presence of the Commissioner and Amin deputed by the
court. Petitioner has to thank herself that no action was taken by
the court for abusing the process of the court in putting up
boundaries on FGHIJ line for which no decree was provided and
that too after getting assistance and in the presence of a
Commissioner and Amin deputed by the court. I do not find any
merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed.
(S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)
aks