ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order passed in E.P.No. 6 of 2012 in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, dated 04.10.2016, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, in E.P.No. 6 of 2012 in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, dated 04.10.2016.

2. The petitioner claiming to be the President of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peedam filed the above suit in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents 1 & 2. The suit was decreed on 03.03.2005, forbearing the respondents from constructing a Church in the suit schedule property, without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector concerned. The respondents have not filed any appeal as against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, dated 03.03.2005 and the same becomes final. With a relief of removing the Church constructed in the suit schedule property, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in E.P.No. 6 of 2012, under Order XXI, Rule 35 and 36 of Civil Procedure Code, that the respondents had illegally constructed the Church in the suit schedule property, in violation of the Decree and in disobedience of the order of the Court. The Executing Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents constructed the Church after passing of the decree in O.S.No. 442 of 2002. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as a President of Hindu Dharma Vidya Peedam and in the representative capacity filed the above suit in O.S.No. 442 of 2002 for the relief of permanent injunction as against the respondents 1 & 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in and around Kunnathur Village, there are 10 Hindu ancient Temples and some of the Temples are administered by HR & CE Department. In the year 1983, Kanyakumari District witnessed a communal clash between two religious groups, during the festival of Bhagavathi Amman Temple at Mandaikadu. Therefore, the Government constituted a Commission headed by a retired Judge of High Court and he also submitted a report to the Government, which was accepted by the Government, under G.O.Ms.No. 916, dated 29.04.1986. As per the report, in order to avoid the communal clashes in future, there should be a safe distance between the existing places of worship and another place of worship of different faith. The learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 4(3) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1970, no place of worship shall be constructed without prior permission of the District Collector and after the incident of communal clash in the year 1983, the District Collector, Kanyakumari has also issued a circular on 18.08.1982 to all the local bodies, referring the Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972, that no building planning permission is to be granted to any new place of worship within 1km from the existing place of worship and necessary permission has to be obtained from the District Collector. However, the respondents put up a shed in Re-Survey No. 214/32 and attempted to construct a Church. Hence, the petitioner approached the learned District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, seeking for a relief of permanent injunction against these respondents and the trial Court has also decreed the suit, forbearing the respondents from constructing the Church without prior permission from the District Collector.

2.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents, who are the parties to the suit in O.S.No. 442 of 2002, w