1. The order under challenge in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the one at Exhibit-P4 rendered by the court below concerned (Munsiff Court, Kottarakara) on 5.1.2017 on E.P.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.144 of 2009, whereby the petitioner/judgment debtor has been directed to remove the obstructions and the printing materials deposited in the shop rooms, maintain the shop rooms in the previous position and hand over the show rooms to the decree holder for business within the time stipulated therein.

2. Heard Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant/judgment debtor and Sri. G.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in Exhibit-P1 judgment and decree and is also the judgment debtor in Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition filed by the respondents for executing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, so as to restrain the petitioner herein from causing damage to the scheduled shop rooms and from obstructing or interfering in any manner with a peaceful possession, enjoyment and conduct of the business in the scheduled shop rooms. Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition has been filed by the respondents herein alleging violation of Exhibit-P1 decree. The petitioner filed Exhibit-P3 objection denying the claim of the respondents. After taking evidence and after hearing both sides, the court below as per the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 5.1.2017 has allowed Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition in part by directing the petitioner to restore the shop rooms to its original position and to hand over the same to them, etc. as stated herein above. The petitioner would contend that the execution court while passing the impugned Exhibit-P4 order, has lost sight of the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C., having directed the petitioner to remove these obstructions and restore them to its original position and hand over possession of the same to the respondents. That such a course cannot be adopted while executing a decree of prohibitory injunction.

4. As regards the factual findings made in Exhibit-P4, it is seen that the allegations of the decree holders are to the effect that the judgment debtor had trespassed into the decree schedule shop room by making hole on the southern wall of the shop room and had destroyed the glass in front of the northern side shutter of the shop room and had stolen the tables, chairs, wooden counter, grinder, gas cylinder, stoves, utensils, groceries and water tank, thereby causing loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further the judgment debtor had unloaded rocks and cement blocks in front of the shop room to prevent the entrance from the road. This was stated to be committed during the night on 22.9.2014, 23.9.2014 and 24.9.2014. The execution court has noted that PW1 has stated clearly that he had seen the incident. According to PW2, the judgment debtor and his men had hit the first respondent/decree holder on his head and the judgment debtor had entered into the shop room and destroyed the shop room by using a stick. PW2 would further depose that on 23.9.2014, the judgment debtor and his men have started to destroy the shop room and that out of fear, the first respondent/decree holder had ran away from the scene. The court below has clearly found that the evidence adduced by the decree holders would indeed show that the first respondent/decree holder was manhandled by the judgment debtor and immediately ran away from the scene and on the next day he was informed through phone that the shop room was destroyed. As per the averments in the Execution Petition, the judgment debtor and his men had trespassed into the shop room by making a hole on the the southern wall of the shop room and by destroying the glass in front of the northern side shutter of the shop room and that the judgment debtor had stolen 5 tables, 17 chairs,