Execution petitions may proceed despite status quo orders if underlying rights have been resolved and are clear.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging the order in EA.No.4 of 2025 in EP.No.59 of 2019 in OS No.439 of 1985 passed on 06.02.2026 by the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The order impugned has been produced as Ext.P14. The prayer in EA.No.4 of 2025 filed by the respondent is to depute an Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor. The prayer was opposed by the petitioner stating that there is an order of status quo passed by this Court in WPC.No.20024 of 2019 on 15.10.2019 (Ext.P12) with respect to the subject matter in the present suit and hence the Execution Petition cannot be proceeded. The facts which led to EA.No.4 of 2025 are as follows;

2. OS No.439 of 1985 was filed by the respondent for a decree of injunction. OS.No.429 of 1985 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner for fixation of boundary and consequential reliefs. The suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment. It finally reached this Court in Second Appeals numbered SA.Nos.689 and 710 of 1992. By Ext.P2, the second appeals were disposed of. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner who were plaintiffs in OS.No.429 of 1985 conceded before this Court that they do not claim any right beyond line ‘OL’ in Ext.C1(1) plan. Based on the above concession, the counsel for the respondent also submitted that that they have no further grievance and no interference with the judgments was required. In view of the above submissions which were recorded in the judgment in the second appeals, this Court disposed of the second appeals making it clear that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner will not claim any right to the land north of line “OL” in Ext.C1(1) plan. The judgment in the First Appeals from which the Second Appeals arose shows that the appeals filed by the respondent were dismissed. The Court affirmed the acceptance of Ext.C1(1) plan by the Munsiff Court. Pursuant to the judgment, the decree was executed and boundary was fixed at “OL” line. According to the respondent, a ‘kayyala’ had also been constructed. When the ‘kayyala’ was demolished, Execution Petition was filed. A Commission was taken out and the Commissioner submitted a report stating that there has been demolition. At that stage, a contention was taken by the petitioner that the Execution Petition was not maintainable. The Court held that the Execution Petition was maintainable and it cannot be dismissed for the sheer reason that the High Court had not positively made any declaration regarding the right over the portion on the north of ‘OL’ line. The Court directed the petitioner to take further steps for executing the decree. The said order dated 19.05.2025 was challenged before this Court in CRP.No.202 of 2025 by the petitioner. This Court by Ext.P11 judgment, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. Before this Court, a contention was taken by the petitioner that the respondent was holding the property on the basis of the assignment and the assignment has been cancelled by the Government. The cancellation of the assignment has been challenged in WPC.No.20024 of 2019, which is pending consideration. It is hence submitted that the respondent had no right over the properties which were subject matter of the assignment and hence the Execution Petition cannot be continued. This Court held that as far as the rights between the petitioner and the respondent are concerned, it has become final and the petitioner cannot have any claim over the properties to the north of ‘OL”line. The Court further held that as far as the assignment was concerned, the dispute is between the respondent and the State and it cannot have any impact on the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. After Ext.P11 judgme