JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.07.2013 passed in E.A. No. 229 of 2012 in E.P. No. 84 of 2011 in O.S. No. 136 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.)

The revision petitioners are the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2009 instituted by the respondent herein. They have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition challenging the Order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, in E.A. No. 229 of 2012 in E.P. No. 84 of 2011 in O.S. No. 136 of 2009.

2. The respondent herein, in his capacity as a Trustee of the Kasidharmam Ayyavazhi Thirukovil, has instituted the aforesaid suit praying to issue a Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct compound wall demolished by them at their own costs; and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the water pipe line running across the suit schedule property and to lay the same in Panchayat Union Road.

3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit temple is in existence from time immemorial in which deities such as Sri Adhinarayanar, Aadhilakshmi, Sriraman and Anjaneyar have been installed and are worshipped by the devotees in the locality. The temple is also provided with electricity service connection and the actual electricity consumption charges are being paid to the Electricity Board. Further, there was a compound wall surrounding the temple and on the north side of the temple, there was a water tank installed in the land of the fifth defendant Panchayat Board, through which water is being supplied to the temple by using multiple water pipes embedded beneath the earth. However, one such pipe was laid across the temple and the respondent/plaintiff made representation to the defendants to change the pipeline so that it can pass through the Panchayat road. According to the respondent/plaintiff, his frequent requests made to the revision petitioners / defendants had irked them and therefore, they have demolished the compound wall surrounding the temple, which caused prejudice to the respondent / plaintiff as well as the devotees, who visit the temple. When it was questioned by the respondent/plaintiff, the revision petitioners / defendants justified the demolition so as to facilitate changing the route of the pipeline passing through the temple. It was also stated that they will construct the compound wall at their own costs and will also lay the pipeline in the Panchayat road. However, the revision petitioners / defendants failed to fulfil their promise and therefore, the respondent / plaintiff sent a complaint dated 03.07.2008 to the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, the fifth defendant in the suit. Subsequently, he met the fifth defendant in person on 02.01.2009 and reiterated his demand. Finding no response, the respondent / plaintiff has instituted the suit.

4. Upon receipt of the notice, the revision petitioners / defendants 1, 2 and 4 engaged a counsel to contest the suit, but they did not file any written statement. The fourth petitioner / fifth defendant did not even engage any advocate. Therefore, the suit was decreed exparte on 08.04.2010. On the strength of the same, the respondent / plaintiff has filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No. 84 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking arrest of the revision petitioners/defendants for not complying with the decree passed by the trial Court and to confine them in Civil Prison for a period of three months.

5. Pursuant to the initiation of the aforesaid Execution Petition, the revision petitioners/defendants have filed E.A. No. 229 of 2012 under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property, with the help of a taluk surveyor, stating that there was no compound wall in Surv