O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kolenchery in E.P.13/00 in O.S.101/98. As per the terms of the decree it is stated that defendants in O.S.101/98 are restrained, until a way is set out under Section 14 of the Easement Act through B, C and D scheduled properties to A schedule property, from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff or her men from using either of the pathway noted in Ext.C1(a) sketch etc. So it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that what is directed by the Court below is for a right of way through B, C and D schedule. According to him, the trial Court has only accepted the second plan wherein an easy way is provided, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. I feel this is a fit case where a second look in the matter is necessary by the executing Court. Without making any observation on the merits of the case, I want to caution that the executing Court is ordinarily expected to comply with the terms of the decree and not otherwise and unless there are legally -:Page numbers:-

permissible methods by which it can be deviated from. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside an