IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 1235 of 2003() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2003 IN EA.928/2002 IN EP.88/96 IN OS.976/94 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER: ----------------------------- M.P. LATHIKA @ LATHA AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. VIJAYAN, SREE BHAVAN, KAIPATTOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. KUNJAMMA CHERIYAN, W/O. CHERIYAN, BENNY NIVAS, V.K. COLONY, PROVIDENCE ROAD, THEVAKKAL, B.M.C., COCHIN-21. 2. P.K. DASAN, S/O. KUTTY, PARAKKATTU HOUSE THYKKARACHIRA, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. P.K. KUTTY, PARAKATTU HOUSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1235 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 O R D E R When the revision came up on earlier occasions, there was no representation for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the revision has become infructuous. The first respondent in the revision has filed I.A.No.774/08 stating all the relevant facts which would indicate that the revision has become infructuous. 2. The revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.928/02 in E.P.No.88/96 by which the Court below declined to grant further time for payment of the decree amount in order to get redelivery of the property. 3. The first respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.88/96 for execution of the money decree. The property attached before judgment was brought to sale. In the Court auction sale, the decree holder purchased the property. When delivery was attempted, the revision petitioner obstructed. E.A.No.932/2000 was filed by the petitioner while E.A.403/2000 was filed by the C.R.P.1235/03 -2- decree holder under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. The executing Court held that the revision petitioner has no title to the property and that the obstruction made by him is liable to be removed. Against that order, E.F.A.1/01 was filed by the revision petitioner. The E.F.A. was dismissed against which A.F.A. 64/02 was filed by her. That A.F.A was also dismissed. 4. At the time of disposal of E.F.A..No.1/01, this Court had granted time to the petitioner to pay the decree amount on or before 29.3.2002. The amount was not paid within time. Though the revision petitioner filed R.P.No.183/02 against the order in E.F.A.No.1/01, that review petition was also dismissed. 5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.774/08, nothing survives in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. dsn