K. Harilal, J.

The petitioner is the 5th defendant in E.P. No. 355 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1264 of 2006 on the files of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakuiam as well as the 5th respondent in E.A. No. 538 of 2011 filed therein. E.P. No. 355/2011 was filed for the execution of the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 1264/2006. This O.P. is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed in E.A. No. 538 of 2011 referred above. E.A. No. 538 of 2011 was filed by the decree holders under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass an interim order restraining the judgment debtors from constructing the third floor or making any form of further construction above the second floor in the building situated in the plaint schedule property during the pendency of execution petition.

The judgment debtors had filed a counter opposing the interim order prayed for by the decree holders.

2. The facts of the case is as follows: The decree holders, who are seven in numbers, filed the above suit O.S. No. 1264 of 2006 against five defendants for perpetual injunction. The subject matter of the suit was the proposed construction in the plaint schedule property having an extent of 3.0 cents. The plaint schedule property belongs to defendants 1 to 4. The 5th defendant was a builder-company represented by its Managing Director. Later, the dispute between the decree holders and the judgment debtors was settled by a joint compromise petition, which was filed before the trial court as I.A. No. 6836 of 2008. In that compromise, the petitioner herein also was a signatory as the Managing Director representing the 5th judgment debtor company. After recording the compromise, the court below decreed the suit in terms of the compromise on 29.08.2008. As per clause 1 of the terms of compromise, the decree holders agreed to allow the judgment debtors 1 to 5 to construct a building having ground floor plus two floors in the plaint schedule property on the ordinary foundation. According to the second clause, the judgment debtors 1 to 5 agreed to construct a building having ground floor plus two floors only in the plaint schedule property strictly in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and by constructing an ordinary foundation as basement for the building. The other clauses are not question in controversy in this petition.

3. It is the case of the decree holders that the judgment debtors have violated the decree by acting in violation of the terms of the compromise. More specifically, the decree holders contended that though the judgment debtors 1 to 4 are prohibited from constructing a multi storied building having more than second floor in the plaint schedule property, the defendants have started the construction work for the third floor in violation of the decree. In the I.A., they have prayed for passing an order of injunction restraining the judgment debtors from constructing third floor or making any form of further construction above the second floor of the building in the plaint schedule property pending execution petition. Along with the execution petition, the decree holders filed a commission application for local inspection and the commission appointed by the court had filed Ext. C1 report.

4. The judgment debtors entered appearance and the 5th defendant filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of the judgment debtors. He contented that the construction in the plaint schedule property is not being done by the judgment debtors; but by him in his individual capacity. His case is that he had purchased the plaint schedule property from the judgment debtors 1 to 4 and some other persons who are not parties to the suit, by way of sale deed No. 2962 of 2009, which is marked as Ext. B 1. Since he is not a party in his individual capacity to the suit as well as to the compromise, the compromise decree passed by the court is not binding upon him as the alleged work is going to be done in cap