The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff/appellant in A.S. No.25 of 2010 of Sub Court, Perumbavoor, is aggrieved by dismissal of I.A.No.1178 of 2011, by which he sought review of the judgment and decree of the appellate court.

2. The plaintiff, who was the owner of an item of property, contented that the 1st defendant who was the owner of western property, indiscriminately and unscientifically excavated his property and thereby caused serious threat of loss of lateral support to plaintiff's property from the defendants property. Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were sought to restore the lateral support and to prohibit the defendant from removing soil from plaint 'B' schedule property, without leaving at least 15 ft. width from the boundary. The trial court, refused to grant mandatory injunction, but granted a relief of prohibitory injunction. It was carried in appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court substantially allowed the appeal. This was challenged in second appeal by the defendants which was dismissed at the thresh hold, without notice to the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff had filed I.A.NO.1178 of 2011, seeking a review of the judgment and decree to the extent of incorporating a permission to the plaintiff to carryout and complete the work and to recover the amounts from the defendants, in case they disobeyed the mandatory injunction decree. This was dismissed by the court below, holding that the second appeal filed by the defendant stands disposed of and hence there was no scope for invoking the power of review. The legality and correctness of the above order is impugned in this revision.

3. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had sought for a prayer for a mandatory injunction, to restore the lateral support by constructing a retention wall. The lower appellate court specifically granted this as relief C, in the following terms.

“C) Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are liable to construct a retention wall having a height of about 10 meters on the western boundary in its entire length of plaint A schedule property so as to restore lateral support to plaint A schedule property”.

4. The grievance of Mr. V. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff was that though the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and directed the defendants to restore the lateral support by constructing a supporting wall, the court did not go further to permit the plaintiff to do the work at the cost of defendants, in case of their disobedience and to recover it from them. It was contended that any relief of mandatory injunction without such a default clause would render relief 'C' of the decree nugatory, ineffective and unexecutable, since the entire burden of construction by the plaintiff would involve huge expenses. It was on this premise that the review was sought. However, the judgment of the lower appellate, a copy of which was made available at the time of hearing show that the court has clearly dealt with this prayer, at para 19 of the judgment as follows:

“Therefore defendants are liable to construct a retention wall having a height of 10 mts from the lower ground level on the western boundary in the entire length of plaint 'A' schedule property so as to restore the lateral support to plaint A schedule property. If the defendants fail to construct the retention wall as indicated above, plaintiff can get it done and realise the cost of the construction from the defendant.” (emphasis supplied)

5. Even though the lower appellate court categorically held as above and permitted the plaintiff to recover the costs from the defendants, while paraphrasing the reliefs in the last paragraph of the judgment, the mandatory relief was referred to, but the latter part of the relief granted was omitted to be carried forward. After paragraph 19 quoted above, court proceeded to refer to the reliefs evolved from the preceding discussion of facts, which eminently shows that the relie