IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 1227 OF 2003() ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.117/1998 IN O.P.A NO.99 OF 1986 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.W.D. PROJECT CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PRESENTLY PROJECT CIRCLE, PIRAVOM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI B. JAYASURYA RESPONDENT(S) - JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. O.P. POULOSE, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, CHAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, VALAKM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM (DIED) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED: ------------------------------------------------------------- 2. SMT. SARAMMA, ONAMTHURUTHILL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O., MUVATUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SHRI REJI PAULOSE, DO. DO. 4. SMT. SALY PAULOSE, POOTHIRAYILL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL, P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. SMT. BIJI (KUNJUMOL), W/O. SUNNY JOSEPH, NAREKATTU HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.12.2010 ON C.M. APPL. NO.1121 OF 2008, I.A. NO.2909 OF 2008 AND I.A. NO.2910 OF 2008. ADV. SRI.K.V.RAJU SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R2 TO R5 SMT.ALEYAMMA ABRAHAM FOR R2 TO R5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.1227 of 2003 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This Court disposed of the revision petition by order dated July 10, 2006 remitting the execution petition to the court below for fresh decision. It is revealed that the sole respondent had expired on 18.04.2004. In other words order dated July 10, 2006 was passed against the sole respondent who died even before the order. Hence the order of this Court dated July 10, 2010 in the revision is a nullity and is required to be re-opened. I do so. 2. Legal representatives of deceased respondent are impleaded as additional respondent Nos.2 to 5 as per order passed this day on C.M. Appl. No.1121 of 2008, I.A. No.2909 of 2008 and I.A. No.2910 of 2008. 3. Petitioner filed E.P. No.117 of 1998 in O.P(A) No.99 of 1986 in the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam for recovery of certain amount due from deceased judgment debtor (who expired on 18.04.2004). That execution petition was dismissed by the impugned order stating that no amount is due to the decree holder-petitioner under the decree sought to be C.R.P. No.1227 of 2003 -: 2 :- executed. It is contended by learned Government Pleader that execution petition is dismissed without stating proper reasons. Learned counsel for additional respondent Nos.2 to 5 contended that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. It is seen that execution petition was dismissed without stating proper reasons. It is not stated that why no amount is due to the petitioner notwithstanding its claim. In the circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated April 6, 2001 dismissing E.P. No.117 of 1998 (in O.P (A) No.99 of 1986) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh decision. It is made clear that if the executing court found that any amount is due to the petitioner from the deceased respondent, the decree could be executed against additional respondent Nos.2 to 5 only to the extent of assets if any inherited by them from the deceased judgment debtor/respondent. Parties shall appear in the court below on 10.01.2011. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv