IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 499 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2009 IN EP 26/07,EA 60/2009 IN OS.8/2003 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN EP/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUMARI JAYASREE, D/O.DEVAKI, S.J.BHAVAN, VETTAMANGALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. S.J.SUDHEESH, S/O.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, S.J.BHAVAN, VETTAMANGALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. S.J.JAYESH, S/O.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, S.J.BHAVAN, VETTAMANGALAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER IN E.P./PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.MOHANACHANDRAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY PANICKER, RENJITH BHAVAN, RUSSALPURAM, THALAYIL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.499 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are judgment debtors 2 to 4 in E.P.No.26 of 2007 in O.S.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyattinkara. In the execution proceedings, these petitioners moved an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming independent right over the property proceeded in execution. That application was dismissed for default. Against which, they preferred a review petition. That review petition was also dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Propriety and correctness of that order passed in the review petition is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the CRP.499/09 2 respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. Petitioners, being the judgment debtors, cannot claim any independent right to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC to challenge the execution of the decree. So much so, their application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC itself was not maintainable. I find no merit in the revision challenging the order passed in the review petition. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp