IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 327 of 2010() --------------------- IA NO.2081/2003 IN IA (FD) NO.1570/1996 IN OS.47/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. MARIAMMA THOMAS,PEROORKAVILAYA POOVAKKADU VEEDU,NEDUVARAMCODE,ALA. 2. REJI P.MATHEW, PEROORKAVILAYA POOVAKKADU VEEDU, NEDUCARAMCODE,ALA (REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHEELA P.RAJI. ADDRESS IS SHOWN AS ABOVE). 3. SHERLY P.MATHEW,PEROORKAVILAYA POOVAKKADU VEEDU,NEDUVARAMCODE MURI, ALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.JOSEPH PAZHEPARAMBIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REMI JOSEPH,REJA BHAVAN, EAVOOR THEKKU MURI,KEERIKADU P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY-690 516. 2. ELIZEBETH JOHN,ALINTEVADAKKETHIL PUTHIYAKAVU,MAVELIKKARA-690 101. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.327 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. ORDER This revision petition is in challenge of order on I.A.No.2081 of 2003 in I.A.(F.D.)No.1570 of 1996 in O.S.No.47 of 1995 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chengannur. That is a suit for partition. Preliminary decree was passed on 31.07.1996 which was confirmed in appeal and Regular Second Appeal. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.1570 of 1996 for passing a final decree. Advocate Commissioner appointed in the case submitted a report, mahazar and plan. Petitioners filed I.A.No.2081 of 2003 to set aside the said report, mahazar and plan submitted by Advocate Commissioner and I.A.No.2082 of 2003 to summon witnesses. Learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.2081 of 2003 holding that division made by the Advocate Commissioner is just and equitable and finding no merit in the objection preferred by the petitioners. In the meantime, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the learned Munsiff has passed a final decree on 24.06.2010. If that be so, it is not necessary to pursue this revision petition since it is open to the petitioners to challenge the final decree on all grounds available to them including correctness of dismissal of I.A.No.2081 of 2003. CRP No.327/2010 2 Resultantly, this revision petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge the final decree on all grounds available to them including correctness of dismissal of I.A.No.2081 of 2003. I.A.No.1555 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks