IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 570 of 2009 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2009 IN EA.NO. 666/09 IN EP NO.228/96 IN OS.NO.482/1990 OF THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS 5 & 6 DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUSEELA, W/O. MADHVAN NADAR (5TH JD) KALLARATHALAIKKAL ROADARIKATHU PUTHAN VEEDU, EDAIKKODU DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE. 2. RAJEEV @ MANIKUTTAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NADAR (6TH JD) KALLARATHALAIKKAL RADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAIKKODU DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.THAMPAN THOMAS RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KAMALA KUMARI AMMA, D/O. THANKAKKA PILLAI, KALLARATHALAIKKAL PUTHAN VEEDU, KAITHOORKONAM, EDAIKKODU DESOM, PALLICHAL PAKUTHY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.570 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 26/08/2009 in E.A No.666 of 2009 in E.P No.228 of 1996 in O.S No.482 of 1990 passed by the Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Judgment debtors 5 and 6 in the above execution proceedings are the revision petitioners. The decree passed in the above suit was one for redemption and putting up of boundary. Suit was decreed. In the execution proceedings, these judgment debtors have moved an application for appointment of a commissioner to ascertain the value of improvements purported to have been made by them after passing of the decree. Learned Munsiff dismissed that application vide the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. C.R.P.No.570 OF 2009 Page numbers 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 respondents/decree holders is necessary and it is dispensed with. Perusing the impugned order, I find the learned Munsiff has taken note that the judgment debtors have not made any claim for valuable improvements during the trial of the suit, which essentially means that was not a question adjudicated before a decree was granted. When that be so, after passing of the decree, ascertainment of the value of improvements which ought to have been done earlier cannot be permitted. Of course, ascertainment of value improvements is permissible where there was an earlier assessment before passing of the decree and thereafter substantial improvements have been made after the passing of the decree. Merely moving a commission application C.R.P.No.570 OF 2009 Page numbers in the execution stage contending that the judgment debtors have made valuable improvements is not sufficient to show the entitlement to seek for determination of the value of improvements and payment thereof by the decree holder. I do not find any impropriety or illegality, leave alone any jurisdictional infirmity in the order of the court below warranting interference by exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv