RAMASAMY GOUNDER Vs. SUGUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. First defendant in O.S.No.1222 of 1984 on the file o1. f District Munsif Court, Uthangarai, is the revision petitioner herein and the matter arises in execution.

(2.) THE respondent herein obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner and others not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of a cart track, It is alleged in the E.P., after decree has become final, the petitioner herein has given trouble to the respondents by interfering with the enjoyment of the cart track by placing fence and causing obstructions. It is further alleged that the respondents even moved the police stations to remove the obstruction which would not yield any result, Hence, they come to this court to implement the decree under O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IT has come out in evidence that even during trial, a Commissioner was deputed to ascertain the existence of cart track and he had found that a cart track is in existence and the same is situated on the south of a electric tower, IT was after holding that cart track is in existence, decree was granted. The case of the petitioner is that it is situated on the north of the tower. That contention was rejected and found against the petitioner. Even now, the very same contention is put forward that there is no car track is in existence. The lower court after appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion, especially replying on the Commissioner's report that the contention was not bona fide. The lower court also found that there is a obstruction was caused in the enjoyment of the pathway and therefore the petitioner is liable to be detained in civil person. I find that the lower court has considered the entire evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that obstruction which is caused earlier is still in existence. Therefore, decreeholder is entitled to execute the decree under O.21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.