Failure to fully comply with a court decree for demolition of illegal construction and improper interpretation of the demolition directions can lead to dismissal of civil revision petitions and enforcement of the demolition with expenses to be borne by the non-compliant party.

1. The judgment debtors in E.P.No.135 of 2005 in O.S.No.444/1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur are the petitioners in the present civil revision petitions. The decree holder is the respondent in both the revisions.

2. The above suit O.S.No.444/1999 came to be filed by the respondent herein for the following reliefs:

(i) for a declaration that the construction made by the revision petitioners in the common space lying on the sought of the respondent's property was illegal;

(ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners from putting up further constructions in the said property; and

(iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioners to remove the illegal construction including balcony, staircase, septic tank and the parapet wall in the first floor made in the common space lying on the south side of the respondent's property.

3. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 30.09.2005. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioners in A.S.No.26/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram was also dismissed by a judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 16.02.2010. Thereafter, the revision petitioners preferred a second appeal on the file of this court in S.A.No.1610/2010. This court, while confirming the judgment of the lower appellate court, clarified and modified the decree by directing that the over bridge and the pillars supporting the over bridge alone were liable to be demolished and removed and that the staircase and other constructions raised by the revision petitioners referred to in the trial court's decree should remain in tact. The said decree as modified by the High Court in its judgment dated 09.09.2011 pronounced in S.A.No.1610/2010 has admittedly become final.

4. Meanwhile, the respondent herein/decree holder filed E.P.No.135/2005 on the file of the trial court for executing the decree granting mandatory injunction. Such an Execution Petition came to be filed even before the filing of the first appeal before the first appellate court. The Executing Court, without properly reading and understanding the decree of the trial court, instead of directing removal of the construction directed to be removed, ordered delivery of possession. The said order passed in the Execution Petition was set aside by this court by its order dated 16.09.2010 made in C.R.P.No.594 of 2010. Subsequently, the first appeal came to be dismissed and in the second appeal, the decree of the trial court was modified to the extent indicated supra.

5. Thereafter, the Executing Court took up the Execution Petition E.P.No.135/2005 and passed an order on 07.07.2011 directing the revision petitioners/judgment debtors to remove the over bridge and pillars supporting the over bridge put in the common space lying on the south of the respondent's/decree holder's property, within 15 days from the date of the said order. It was also ordered therein that in case of failure on the part of the revision petitioners/judgment debtors to comply with the said order, necessary further orders would be passed making the revision petitioners/judgment debtors to bear the expenses. As the revision petitioners/judgment debtors had not removed the structures as directed, the Executing Court, by an order on 22.07.2011, appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to carry out the demolition work as per the decree. As against the said order of the Executing Court dated 22.07.2011, the revision petitioners/judgment debtors filed a revision in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3254 of 2011 on the file of this court. This court, by an order dated 09.09.2011 upheld and confirmed the order of the Executing Court. However, the Advocate Commissioner was directed to take the assistance of a qualified civil engineer so as to ensure that the portions allowed to be retained by the revision petitioners/judgment debtors are retained while carrying out the demolition work. This court also directed that the remuneration payable t