IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRP NO. 963 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2018 IN OS NO.853 OF 2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT , KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:

SATHEESAN NAIR AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SOBHANA MANDIRAM, HOUSE 333, WARD NO.14, MYLAKKADU CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM - 691 571, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEJA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SASIKALA, RESIDING AT SOBHANA MANDIRAM, HOUSE 333, WARD NO.14, MYLAKKADU CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM - 691 571.

BY ADV HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

1 NIZARUDEEN AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, RESIDING AT ANZAR MANZIL, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

2 VICTOR AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.FABIN, RESIDING AT V.J.S.MANDIRAM, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MULAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

3 SUNIL AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SUNIL MANDIRAM, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

4 MOHANAN NAIR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL VEEDU, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

5 SUSEELAN NAIR AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL VEEDU, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

6 MURALEEDHRAN PILLAI AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SUNIL MANDIRAM, AP 2/179, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576.

7 SUNITHIA AGED 41 YEARS, WP.JOSE, RESIDING AT V.J.S.MANDIRAM, AP 2/248, CHIRAVILA VADAKKE MYLAKKADU, KANNANALOOR PO, KOLLAM 691 576.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R.”

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam (for short, 'the execution court') dismissing an execution petition on the ground that the decree is inexecutable.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder, and the respondents are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.15/2017 in O.S.No.853/2011 on the file of the execution court. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants were set ex-parte and the suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment dated 11/03/2014. The revision petitioner filed an execution petition before the execution court as E.P.No.15/2017, wherein, among other reliefs, he prayed to carry out the construction of the compound wall or fencing to decree B schedule property as per Ext.C1(b) plan at the expense of the decree-holder through the process of court by deputing the Amin and appointing a Commission. The execution court dismissed the execution petition as not executable. It is challenging the said order; the decree-holder has filed this revision petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondents.

4. The execution court dismissed the execution petition mainly on the following grounds:

(i) The decree does not specify the portion of the property through which the compound wall has to be put up. Without specifying the same, the compound wall cannot be directed to be put up.

(ii) Ext.C1(b) plan has not been appended to the decree, and the decree does not show that Ext.C1(b) is accepted by the court.

(iii) Amin reported that the decree is ambiguous, and the order cannot be executed.

5. Order 20 Rule 6 of CPC deals with the contents of the decree. The said Rule, among other things, states that the decree shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. In the decree, the reliefs granted were not specifically stated. What is stated in the result portion of the decree is that “the suit is decreed with costs.” It is true that an ex