Kerala High Court
Murikkancheri Krishnan vs Payyadakkan Lakshmi Amma on 4 April, 2013
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935
CRP.No. 87 of 2013 ()
----------------------
REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. MURIKKANCHERI KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.GOPALAN, AGRICULTURIST, REGILALAYAM
KOLARI AMSOM, KALLAR DESOM, P.O.MATTANUR
THALASSERI TALUK.
2. M.VALSALA, AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O.KRISHNAN, NO OCCUPATION, REGILALAYAM,
KOLARI AMSOM, KALLAR DESOM, P.O.MATTANUR
THALASSERI TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL
SRI.SAJU.P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
------------------------------------------------
1. PAYYADAKKAN LAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS
W/O.KUNHAPPA NAMBIAR, NO OCCUPATION
MAVILA KANNOTH HOUSE, KOLARI AMSOM, KALLOOR DESOM
P.O.MATTANNUR, THALASSERI TALUK.
2. PAYYADAKKAN MOHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.KUNHAPPA NAMBIAR, BSNL EMPLOYEE, DO.
3. SISTER PAYYADAKKAN SOBHANAN, AGED 48 YEARS
TEACHER, DO. DO.
4. PAYYADAKKAN SULOCHANA, AGED 38 YEARS
W/O.KRISHNAN, NO OCCUPATION DO. DO.
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P. No. 87 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2013.
ORDER
This Civil Revision is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 303 of 2002 of Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba. A compromise decree was passed in that case. It created reciprocal obligations on plaintiffs and the defendants. Alleging that plaintiffs have not complied with the compromise decree, defendants filed E.P. No. 212 of 2011. Respondents/plaintiffs claimed that the execution petition is not maintainable since petitioners/defendants have not complied with their part of the obligation in the compromise decree. Executing court accepted that contention and dismissed E.P. No. 212 of 2011. That order is under challenge.
Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants contends that some of the directions issued to the petitioners in the compromise decree cannot be carried out before respondents/plaintiffs complied with their part of the compromise petition since that would inundate the whole area.
I am given a copy of the compromise decree which as aforesaid creats reciprocal obligations on petitioners and the C.R.P. No. 87/2013 : 2 : respondents.
In such a situation, there is no point in petitioners requesting the court to enforce part of the decree on the respondents/plaintiffs. At the same time, complaint of petitioners that without construction of the road, the underground pipes cannot be laid as it would inundate the whole area has also to be looked into. The compromise decree has to be executed. There is no dispute for either of the parties regarding that. In that situation, appropriate course is to execute the compromise decree as a whole, simultaneously. Respondents can file an application in E.P. No. 212 of 2011 requiring petitioners to comply with their part of the compromise decree. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to interfere with the order dismissing E.P. No. 212 of 2011.
Resultantly, this civil revision is allowed as under:
1.Order dated 21.11.2012 in E.P No. 212 of 2011 in O.S.No. 303 of 2012 of Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba is set aside.
2.E.P. No. 212 of 2011 is remitted to the said court for fresh decision.
C.R.P. No. 87/2013 : 3 :
3.Respondents can file an application in E.P. No. 212 of 2011 to direct petitioners to comply with their part of the compromise decree.
4.Executing Court shall appoint an officer of that court to carry out the work and an advocate commissioner if necessary, to supervise the work at the expense of both the parties.
5.The entire work referred to in the compromise decree shall be carried out simultaneously.
6.Parties shall appear in the court below on 11.04.2013.
sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
rv C.R.P. No. 87/2013 : 4 :