IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009/9TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 883 of 2006() --------------------- ( AGAINST ORDER IN E.P.NO.86/04 IN O.S.NO.103/99 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM) REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------- 1. LEKSHMIKUTTY, D/O.KALLYANI, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NANU, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. LEELA, D/O.LEKSHMY, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 4. SHEELA, D/O.LEKSHMY, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 5. GEETHA, D/O.LEKSHMY, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS --------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN @ UNNIES, KONNASSERIL VEETTIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. AMPADY, D/O.RAJAN, KONNASSERIL VEETTIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. CRP.NO.883/06 3. BHARATH, S/O.RAJAN, KONNASSERIL VEETTIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 4. KUTTAPPAN RAJENDRAN, KONNASSERIL VEETTIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 5. KUTTAPPAN, KONNASSERIL VEETIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 6. VENUGOPAL, PATTALASSERIL VEETTIL, KONNASSERIL VEETTIL, PUTLIKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------ C.R.R.No.883 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice on the respondents is not completed. But, it is seen from the impugned order that the revision petitioners/decree holders' allegation of disobedience of the decree of injunction was directed against the 5th judgment debtor. In the impugned order, the learned Munsiff found that the evidence was not sufficient to enter a finding that the 5th judgment debtor, who is the 5th respondent in the civil revision petition, has violated the decree. The notice, which was sent by this court to the 5th respondent is returned with an endorsement that he is no more. Thus the execution petition, as it obtains now, is no longer maintainable since the 5th judgment debtor is no more. If the revision petitioners have a case that the decree is binding on the legal heirs of the 5th judgment debtor and that they are also violating the decree, the petitioners will necessarily have to file a fresh execution petition. C.R.P..No.883/2006 2 With the above observations this civil revision petition is closed on the basis that the same has become infructuous. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk