IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 770 of 2005() --------------------- CMA.27/2000 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.210/1997 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI (IA 704/99) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/D1: ------------------------------------------ AYYAPPAN, S/O.NADUATH KUMARAN, KLARI ASMOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS D1 TO D4: -------------------------------------- 1. PANACHIKKAL VALLI, D/O.PULLIKKATHODI CHAYICHAN, KURUMBNATHORE AMSOM, PUNNATHALA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MANATHIL DEVAKI, DO. DO. 3. KOOLIKKALLAKSHMI, DO. DO. 4. AYYAPPAN @ M.C.DASAN, S/O. DO. 5. PULIKKATHODI AMMUKUTTY @ MANI, ALIAS AMMUKUTTY, W/O.APPUNNI, DO. DO. 6. SAROJINI, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN, ALIAS ARAMUGHAN, DO. 7. PADMAVATHY, D/O. DO. 8. BHASKARAN, S/O. DO. 9. SOBHA, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN, ALIAS ARAMUGHAN, DO. 10. PARVATHY @ SHEEBA, D/O. DO. 11. PREMAN, S/O. DO. 12. INDIRA, D/O. DO. CRP.770/05 13. BINDU, D/O. DO. 14. ESWARI, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN, DO. DO. 15. MUNDI, D/O.NADUVATH AYYAPPAN, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM. 16. CHINN TEACHER, D/O. DO. KLARI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 17. PADMAVATHY, D/O. DO. ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R5 TO 14 SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA FOR R5 TO R14 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2190/05 IN C.R.P.NO.770/05 DISMISSED. 2.3.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.770 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tirur confirming the order of the learned Munsiff dismissing an application moved by the petitioner to set aside the order declaring him ex parte in the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.210 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. In the revision, steps remain to be completed against some of the respondents. Second respondent had expired and the notice issued to the 15th respondent had been returned with endorsement 'not known'. However, when the revision was taken up, it has been brought to my notice that the final decree had already been passed in the suit and the execution proceedings are now in progress. In such circumstances, the revision which has been filed as against the order passed during the pendency of the final decree proceedings declaring the petitioner ex parte has CRP.770/05 2 become infructuous. It is not known whether the petitioner has participated in the final decree proceedings from the stage from which he was declared ex parte by order of the court. The final decree passed in the case, it appears, remains unimpeached and its execution is in progress. I find concurrent decisions rendered by two inferior courts below does not, in the circumstance, warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp