The suit in O.S.No. 1284/1997 was decreed in appeal and the operative part of Ext.P1 judgment which has become final is as follows: “A. Decree is granted for fixing the boundary separating the plaint schedule property from the defendant with an assistance of the Advocate Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor on the basis of the measurements shown in Ext.A2 document.
B. A decree of mandatory injunction is granted directing the defendants to remove the obstruction made on the passage to the plaint schedule within two months and if the defendants fail to do so, the plaintiff is allowed to remove the obstruction and recover the cost of the same form the defendants.
C. The respondents are restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from making any obstruction in putting up of boundary of the plaint schedule property as per the relief granted in A prayer in the suit.”
O.P.(C). No. 1195/2014 2 2. The court below has by the order impugned appointed an 'Amin' to effect delivery of the property which cannot be faulted with in the circumstances. I hasten to add that an Advocate Commissioner shall accompany the 'Amin' for the purpose of fixing the boundary in terms of Clause A extracted above with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner who submitted the report in the suit shall be deputed if available to execute the decree in full. The court below will see to it that full satisfaction is recorded in the Execution Petition without executing the decree piece meal. I do not however find any error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference in the supervisory jurisdiction.
Original Petition is dismissed with the above clarification.
Sd/-
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge