Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
VARGHESE @ VARGHESE JOHN – Appellant
Versus
RATHNAKUMARAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges execution court's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and boundary identification. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observation on jurisdictional scope. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext. P7 order passed by the execution court under Order XXI Rule 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
2. The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to erect fencing in the decree scheduled property. Though the decree does not specifically provide for the construction of a boundary wall, the request was made to protect his rights over the decree schedule property, it is submitted. However, the execution court dismissed the application, holding that appointing an Amin to erect fencing is beyond the scope of the decree, particularly when a suit for fixation of boundary filed by the respondent/defendant was pending at the time. 3. Heard Sri.Sajan Varghese.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI , the Code of Civil Procedure , to contend that, in the course of executing a decree for prohibitory injunction, the execution court is empowered
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
