IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 32 of 2009 ------------------------------- EP.8/01 IN IN FDIA.861/84 IN OS.48/1977 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/R2TO R5/D2 TO D5: 1. RADHAKRISHNA BHATT, 67 YEARS, S/O.VENKATARAMANA BHAT, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT THAIRE OF THEKKIL VILLAGE, P.O. THEKKIL, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. RAMACHANDRA BHAT, 64 YEARS, S/O.VENKATARAMANA BHAT, DO. DO. 3. ACHUTHA BHAT, 62 YEARS, S/O.VENKATARAMANA BHAT, DO. DO. 4. GOVINDA BHAT, 60 YEARS, S/O.VENKATARAMANA BHAT, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS.RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: 1. T.MADHAVA BHATTA, 80 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA BHATTA, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT THAIRE OF THEKKIL VILLAGE, P.O. THEKKIL, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. T.VASUDEVA BHATTA, 43 YEARS, S/O.T.MADHAVA BHATTA, DO. DO. 3. T.PADMANABHA BHAT, 37 YEARS, DO. DO. 4. T.GANESH, 32 YEARS, DO. DO. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.32 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Counsel for the petitioners, though was directed to produce copy of the decree and this Court was about to adjourn the revision petition for the purpose, submits that the decree is extracted in paragraph 9 of the execution petition, which is produced before this Court and that the grievance of the petitioner is only that execution petition has been closed by the court below holding that there is no executable decree. In fact, it is for ascertaining from the decree as to whether it is only a declaratory decree declaring the rights regarding the management of the Temple or as to whether there is any executable portion of the decree that the petitioner was directed to produce copy of the decree. The decree having been not produced and as the counsel repeatedly submits that it is extracted in paragraph 9 of the execution CRP 32/09 2 petition, which is produced before this Court and paragraph 9 does not contain paragraphs 26 to 36 of the decree made mention of therein, this Court is unable to find as to whether there is any executable decree. Hence, without prejudice to the petitioners filing revision petition afresh, producing copy of the decree, I dismiss this revision petition. 22nd January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv