The Decree holder in E.A. No. 16/2001 in E.P.No.2/1998, O.S.No.231/1994, on the file of munsiff Court, Mavelikkara, is the revision petitioner. A decree of mandatory injunction was granted to the revision petitioner, directing the Judgment Debtors to restore the decree scheduled property to its original position. E. P. No. 2/1998 was filed for compliance of the decree. The E.P. was dismissed, for no commission report was appended with the decree to prove prior position of the scheduled properties and therefore, it was not possible to execute the decree granted. Against that, a review application, E.A.16/2001, was filed. That also was dismissed. Hence, this Civil revision petition.

2. I heard both sides. The main contention of the Judgment Debtor, respondent, in this revision is that, as there is no plan or commission report forming part of the decree, it will not be possible to identify the pathway in question as on 1/7/1994. Hence, the decree cannot be executed. The counsel for the revision petitioner, on the other hand, submits that Exts.C1 and C2, the two commission reports in the suit, clearly describe the length and width of the pathway. The same are sufficient to i