Submission of a subsequent Execution Petition is permissible despite the dismissal of an earlier one if the grounds differ.

ORDER

The revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.08.2015 in EP.No.106 of 2012 in OS.No.686 of 1991 of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. The petitioners are the decree holders and they sought assistance of the Court for constructing a compound wall as per the decree. It is alleged that the judgment debtor has violated the decree and demolished a portion of the compound wall. The decree is of 1995. The respondents contended that the Execution Petition is not maintainable. It is stated that an earlier Execution Petition filed as EP.No.136 of 1998 was dismissed on merits and that there is no decree in favour of the decree holders for fixing the boundaries of the plaint schedule property or for construction of a fence or a compound wall. The earlier Execution Petition is seen to have been dismissed for default. The Court relied on the earlier decision in EA.No.56 of 1999 and held that since the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation, it cannot be entertained.

2. This revision petition has been pending before this Court for the past ten years. When the case is taken up, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that even subsequent to this suit, other suits have been filed by the respondents and the same are pending consideration and the dispute is not yet over.

3. The counsel for the petitioners has a contention that the dismissal of the earlier Execution Petition will not be a bar to prefer any subsequent applications and the grounds are also not the same.

4. In view of the passage of time, I am of the opinion that it is only appropriate that the matter is sent back to the court below for reconsideration. The Civil Revision Petition is hence allowed. The order dated 13.08.2015 in EP.No.106 of 2012 in OS.No.686 of 1991 of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally is set aside. The court below is directed to reconsider the petition. The parties are at liberty to file additional pleadings in the light of the subsequent events and after such additional pleadings are filed, the application may be disposed of on merits. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits.

Sd/-