IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 252 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2009 IN E.P.NO.249/07 IN OS.420/2006 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KHADEEJA, W/O. LATE MOIDEEN, ATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SAYAR, S/O. MOIDEEN, -DO-DO...DO... 3. MUHAMMED AMEEN (MINOR), AGED 14, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN,-DO-, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER KHADEEJA. BY ADVS. MR.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY, MR.M.C.RAJEEV MENON, MR.V.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------------------------------- SHIJU, S/O. ABDUL SHAHEED, KOZHITHARA, ATHIPARAMBIL, PONNURUNNI, THAMMANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JESWIN P.VARGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.941/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.252/2009 DISMISSED 6/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.252 OF 2009 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by an executing court directing delivery of the property to the decree holder in a suit for specific performance. Petitioners herein have been substituted in the execution proceedings on the death of the judgment debtor, the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the other petitioners. After their substitution, a claim petition was filed by them contending that they have an independent title and possession over the property covered by the decree. Claim petition was dismissed after enquiry and the execution court passed the impugned order directing delivery of the property to the decree holder. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. At the time CRP.252/09 2 of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal preferred against the dismissal of the claim petition is pending and both the revision and appeal are to be heard together. The appeal against the order dismissing the claim petition, which has the effect of a decree, is challenged by way of an appeal and it is pending before the District Court. I find no merit in the submission of the counsel that the order dismissing the claim petition and the present order passed by the execution court ordering delivery have to be heard together. I do not find any merit in the revision, and hence, this revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp