IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 179 of 2010() --------------------- EP. NO.30/2009 IN OS.93/1993 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------- JOY, S/O.MICHAEL, THALACHIRA HOUSE, ANTHINADU KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS/PLAINTIFF/JD 2 & 3 & RESPONDENT 2&3 -------------------- 1. ROSAKUTTY, W/O.DEVASIA, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, ALANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ALANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.M.DEVASIA, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, ALANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ALANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. AUGUSTINE ABRAHAM, THUDIYANPLACKAL HOUSE, ALANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ALANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. MANI DEVASIA, PANATHANATHU HOUSE, ALANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ALANADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.180 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------- CRP Nos.179 & 180 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 26th March 2010 Order Since common issues are raised in both these CRPs, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in two suits i.e., OS Nos.93/1993 and 151/1993. The decrees were put in execution. The petitioner raised an objection stating that the decrees are not executable. The main contention taken was that the lie of the properties has not been properly shown in the plan appended to the decrees and therefore, the decrees cannot be enforced without making necessary corrections therein. The Court below too noticed that there is substance in the contention raised by the judgment debtor. However, the Executing Court noticed that very same contentions were raised at the trial as well as the appellate stage. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner were overruled and the Court below decided to proceed with the execution. It is also CRP NOS.179 & 180/10 2 stated in the order that even if the properties are not identifiable due to a mistake in the direction, the executing court can decide such question and identify the property by invoking the power under S.47 CPC. It is against the order passed in EP Nos.29 and 30 of 2009, that these CRPs are filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even going by the impugned order, the executing court has found that there is a mistake in the decree and plan. If that be so, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not possible to execute the decrees and they are unenforceable. It is also pointed out that the decrees have to be got corrected in terms of the lie of the property and thereafter only, execution can be levied. It is also submitted that at any rate, the observation of the Court below that it can identify the property under S.47 CPC is premature. 4. There is some substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The executing court found that there is a mistake in the decree and plan. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, very same contentions were taken out at the trial as well as the appellate stage and his contentions were overruled CRP NOS.179 & 180/10 3 and the decree was passed, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It was the said decree that was put in execution. It is not for the executing court to go behind the pleadings and ascertain the facts. It is well recognised that for construing a decree, the executing court can look into the pleadings and documents and can also determine the identity of the property. Those are matters to be decided at the appropriate stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed hereafter, he will be at liberty to assail the said order before the appropriate forum, raising all his objections. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to do so, these Revision Petitions are dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP NOS.179 & 180/10 4