The executing court has the jurisdiction to pass necessary orders regarding the execution of decrees under Order XXI Rule 32.

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 to pass such further orders as may be required under law, in lieu of or in addition to any other processes. The learned counsel also placed on record a copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 258/2009 of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad, to show that the suit instituted by the respondent has already been dismissed. Further, reliance was placed on Ext. P3 commission report and Ext. P4 sketch to substantiate the contention that the boundary of the decree schedule property is clearly identifiable. The learned counsel further submitted that, if the execution court proceeds to entertain the petitioner’s application and direct an Amin to erect fencing in the decree schedule property, the petitioner would undertake that such action would be subject to the final decision in O.S. No. 258/2009, which is presently under challenge in A.S. No. 90/2024 before the District Court, Palakkad. 5. It appears that the execution court did not consider the scope and ambit of sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI of the in its proper perspective. It proceeded as if the jurisdiction of the executing court under Rule 32 is limited to the courses of actions mentioned in the main clause. In Krishnan Namboodiri v. Unnikrishnan Namboodiri [2005 (3) KLT 556] , this Court has laid down the law in this regard explicitly.

5. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The execution court is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-