IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 473 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN AS.593/1992 Dated 13/03/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/3RD PARTY --------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.SURESH, S/O.KESAVAN, KAMALA VILASOMN, AYILARA KARA, AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE. 2. SAKUNTHALA, W/O.SURESH, RESIDING -DO-. 3. PRATHEEP, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RAJU MANDIRAM, YEROOR MURI, YEROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3 AND RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS AND FIRST DEFENDANT: ------------- 1. MARY ABRAHAM, IAKGNUS, TC 3/1556, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.T.ABRAHAM, RESIDING -DO-. 3. P.M.IYPE @ MATHEW IYPE, KANATHIL PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL, VAZHOOR, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. OOMMAN KASHISA JOHN, KATTURILATHU BUNGLOW, KAITHAKETTIL, KURIOTTUMALA WEST, PIRAVANTHOOR MURI, PUNALUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SHRI N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (Sr.) & SHRI P.K.MANOJ KUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV. SHRI T.R.RAMAN PILLAI (Sr.) & SHRI T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.473 of 2008 IN A.S.No.593 of 1992 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2008 ORDER Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 who were defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.77/1981 filed A.S.No.593/1992 challenging a decree passed by the trial court. Suit was filed by respondents 3 and 4 in this Review Petition for recovery of property from the defendants in the suit. Suit was decreed. Challenging that decree and judgment appeal was filed. In the appeal first respondent/plaintiff filed a memo stating that he is relinquishing the claim for damages and he is only interested in getting recovery of the property. So the decree passed by the trial court was modified. I set aside that part of the decree which allowed the plaintiffs to recover Rs.30,900/- as damages from defendants 2 and 3. Decree passed by the trial court allowing recovery of property of plaintiff confirmed. 3. The main ground raised by the petitioners is that though they are not parties to the suit or appeal the decree holder filed Execution Petition impleading them also alleging that they trespassed into the suit property. If the petitioners are made parties to the Execution Petition, their remedy is to file objection to the Execution Petition and raise all the contentions which they have raised in this Review Petition before the Executing Court. There is also no bar for the review RP No.473/2008 2 petitioners to resort any other remedy which is available to them under law. But, that is not a ground to review the judgment. In the result, Review Petition is dismissed with an observation that the remedy available to the review petitioners is to raise all their objections/contentions in the Execution Petition filed before the Executing Court and contest the same. I.A.No.1661/2008 in R.P.No.473/2008 will stand dismissed. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks