IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 323 of 2007()
1. MATHEW KURIAKOSE, AGED 31,
... Petitioner
2. ROSAMMA, KURIAKOSE, AGED 66, W/O.LATE
3. REEMA KURIAKOSE, AGED 36,
4. SHEENA KURIAKOSE,
Vs
1. JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42, S/O.MATHEW,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.SOJAN JAMES
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/06/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------
C.R.P. No.323 2007 C
-------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2007.
JUDGMENT
This revision petition is preferred against the order of
the Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in E.P.No.161/06 in O.S.No.243/96.
2. The suit was one for specific performance of a
contract and the court decreed the suit directing the
defendants to execute a document with respect to B scheduled
property on receipt of a consideration of Rs.45,713/- and in
case of default, to approach the court for getting the document
executed through court. The defendants did not execute the
document and therefore, the plaintiffs have come up with an
application for execution of the document.
3. In the said execution petition, the respondents
had filed a counter affidavit stating that the way of plaint ‘A’
schedule property cannot be used for traffic due to blasting of
rocks and it must be put back to the original position.
Otherwise, it will cause irreparable injury to the judgment
debtors. The Executing Court negatived the objection and
directed the decree holder to complete the steps before
C.R.P. No.323 2007
:: 2 ::
proceeding further in the matter. It is against that, the present
revision petition is filed.
3. The executability of the decree is only with
respect to the contents that is seen in the decree as found in
the judgment and therefore, the court is only expected to
carry out the directions in the decree at the execution stage.
4. Here, the decree only mandates for execution
of the document on receipt of balance consideration and in
the event of failure, to execute the document through court.
That is the only point to be considered and decided by the
court and any other objection extraneous to the decree need
not be and shall not be considered by the Executing Court.
5. Therefore, the Executing Court was perfectly
justified in directing the decree holder to take steps and to
proceed further.
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition lacks merit
and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.N.KRISHNAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge