JUDGMENT : 1. The order under challenge in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the one at Exhibit-P4 rendered by the court below concerned (Munsiff Court, Kottarakara) on 5.1.2017 on E.P.No.65 of 2014 in O.S.No.144 of 2009, whereby the petitioner/judgment debtor has been directed to remove the obstructions and the printing materials deposited in the shop rooms, maintain the shop rooms in the previous position and hand over the show rooms to the decree holder for business within the time stipulated therein. 2. Heard Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant/judgment debtor and Sri. G.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in Exhibit-P1 judgment and decree and is also the judgment debtor in Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition filed by the respondents for executing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, so as to restrain the petitioner herein from causing damage to the scheduled shop rooms and from obstructing or interfering in any manner with a peaceful possession, enjoyment and conduct of the business in the scheduled shop rooms. Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition has been filed by the respondents herein alleging violation of Exhibit-P1 decree. The petitioner filed Exhibit-P3 objection denying the claim of the respondents. After taking evidence and after hearing both sides, the court below as per the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 5.1.2017 has allowed Exhibit-P2 Execution Petition in part by directing the petitioner to restore the shop rooms to its original position and to hand over the same to them, etc. as stated herein above. The petitioner would contend that the execution court while passing the impugned Exhibit-P4 order, has lost sight of the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C., having directed the petitioner to remove these obstructions and restore them to its original position and hand over possession of the same to the respondents. That such a course cannot be adopted while executing a decree of prohibitory injunction. 4. That such a course cannot be adopted while executing a decree of prohibitory injunction. 4. As regards the factual findings made in Exhibit-P4, it is seen that the allegations of the decree holders are to the effect that the judgment debtor had trespassed into the decree schedule shop room by making hole on the southern wall of the shop room and had destroyed the glass in front of the northern side shutter of the shop room and had stolen the tables, chairs, wooden counter, grinder, gas cylinder, stoves, utensils, groceries and water tank, thereby causing loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further the judgment debtor had unloaded rocks and cement blocks in front of the shop room to prevent the entrance from the road. This was stated to be committed during the night on 22.9.2014, 23.9.2014 and 24.9.2014. The execution court has noted that PW1 has stated clearly that he had seen the incident. According to PW2, the judgment debtor and his men had hit the first respondent/decree holder on his head and the judgment debtor had entered into the shop room and destroyed the shop room by using a stick. PW2 would further depose that on 23.9.2014, the judgment debtor and his men have started to destroy the shop room and that out of fear, the first respondent/decree holder had ran away from the scene. The court below has clearly found that the evidence adduced by the decree holders would indeed show that the first respondent/decree holder was manhandled by the judgment debtor and immediately ran away from the scene and on the next day he was informed through phone that the shop room was destroyed. As per the averments in the Execution Petition, the judgment debtor and his men had trespassed into the shop room by making a hole on the the southern wall of the shop room and by destroying the glass in front of the northern side shutter of the shop room and that the judgment debtor had stolen 5 tables, 17 chairs, wooden counter, grinder, gas cylinder, four stoves, groceries, utensils, water tank, etc. The judgment debtor has contended that there is no sufficient evidence to prove these facts and that that the court below cannot act merely on the basis of the FIRs. said to have been registered by the Police authorities in respect of the alleged incident. The judgment debtor has contended that there is no sufficient evidence to prove these facts and that that the court below cannot act merely on the basis of the FIRs. said to have been registered by the Police authorities in respect of the alleged incident. The court below, after appreciating the evidence, has found that the judgment debtors have adduced sufficient evidence before the execution court to prove that the decree holders were possibly evicted from the building by the highhandedness of the judgment debtor and his men and that the judgment debtor was under a bounden duty to restore the shop room of the decree holders and that even though the judgment debtor has contended that it was the decree holders who committed the damage to the shop room, the said extreme version projected by the judgment debtor is highly unbelievable and incredible. It is in the light of all these cumulative aspects that the execution court has ordered that the judgment debtor is liable to restore the shop room to maintain the shop room in its previous condition and to hand over the shop room to the decree holders for the purpose of the business. These clear fact findings made by the court below cannot be faulted by this Court in any manner in as much as the said fact findings are not in any manner tainted by any gross perversity or unreasonableness. 5. As per the operative portion of the impugned Exhibit-P4 order, it is seen that the execution court has ordered that the judgment debtor is directed to remove obstructions to the shop room, to remove the printing materials deposited in the shop room, maintain the shop rooms in the previous position and to hand over the shop room to the decree holders for the business within three months. 6. Sri. 6. Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would strongly urge that the said effective direction issued by the execution court is beyond the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C. These contentions are raised by the petitioner in Grounds B and C. In Ground C it is specifically urged that the execution court was having only the option to order the detention of the violator in civil prison or for attachment of his property or both in view of the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 32 (2) in as much as the suit was only for prohibitory injunction and not for mandatory injunction. The provisions contained in Rule 32 of Order XXI including the explanation thereto read as follows : “32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction :- (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for (six months) if the judgment debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold ; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of (six months) from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contractor for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. [Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “the act required to be done” covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions.] The explanation attached to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI has been introduced as per the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 made effective from 1.7.2002. Prior to the introduction of the said explanation, there was a line of thinking in judicial view that in so far as the alleged violation of a prohibitory injunction, the only remedy open to the execution court is to detain the violator of the prohibitory injunction in civil prison or for attachment of his properties or both in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 32 of Order XXI. The issue in that regard is now set at rest by the intervention of the Parliament which has introduced the explanation to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI by the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 made effective from 1.7.2002. Therefore, in view of the said explanation, it is specifically clear that the Parliament has declared, in new uncertain terms, that the expression “the act required to be done” as occurring in sub-rule (5) thereof, would cover both prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions. Therefore, the present course of action now adopted by the execution court is fully justifiable in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) as well as the explanation thereto of Rule 32 of Order XXI. Therefore, the present course of action now adopted by the execution court is fully justifiable in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) as well as the explanation thereto of Rule 32 of Order XXI. In the light of these aspects, the abovesaid argument raised by Sri. K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor, will stand overruled. Faced with the situation, K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ judgment debtor, would submit that the judgment debtor is sincerely interested to settle all outstanding disputes with the respondents/decree holders. Sri. G. Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree holders, would submit that the respondents/decree holders have no serious objection to such course of action, provided the objective of any such effort is only bona-fide and sincere and for settling all such disputes through mediation on a reasonable basis. 7. In the light of this submission, it is made clear that nothing in the impugned order would preclude the parties concerned from reaching an out of court settlement in the matter and time in that regard is given by six weeks from the date notified for receiving certified copy of this judgment. If such effort for mediation is successful, then it will be open to the respondents/decree holders to file a memo to that effect before the court below and to that extent, the impugned Exhibit-P4 order would stand modified on the basis of any voluntary offer that may be made by the respondents/decree holders. If the mediation process is not successful within the abovesaid six weeks’ time limit, then the execution court will be at liberty to proceed further in the matter of effectuation of the impugned Exhibit-P4 order. With these observations and directions, the Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.