IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 249 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P 69/2009 IN OS.529/1996 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: DECREE HOLDER/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------- 1. SARADA PILLAI, KAYYALAYIL EDAYARANMULA MURI, AIRAVOM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. MOHANAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAYYALAYIL EDAYARANMULA MURI, AIRAVOM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 3. PADMAKUMARI, KAYYALAYIL EDAYARANMULA MURI, AIRAVOM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN, KAYYALAYIL EDAYARANMULA MURI, AIRAVOM, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 5. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, PADINJARE KUNJIRAKKATTU, MADAKKARA, ARANMULA. 6. RENJINI.K.R, THARAMEL VEEDU, NELLIKKAL KOIPPURAM. 7. REMYA RAJA, VRINDAVANOM, VAZHOOR MANGALAM, CHENGANNOOR. 8. SREERAJ, PADINJAREKANJIRAKKATTU, MADAKKARA, ARANMULA. 9. SUBHADRA, KAYYALAYIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA, ARANMULA VILLAGE. 10. SARATH MOHAN, KAYYALAYIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA, ARANMULA VILLAGE. 11. SARANYA MOHAN, KAYYALAYIL HOUSE, EDAYARANMULA, ARANMULA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL CRP.No. 249 of 2010() RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.J.THANKAMMA, KAYYALAYIL VEEDU, EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARANMULA. 2. K.J.RUKMINIKUTTYAMMA, KAYYALAYIL VEEDU, EDAYARANMULA MURI, ARANMULA. ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.249 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of June, 2010 ORDER Counsel for petitioners state that petitioner No.3 has expired. In view of the manner I propose to dispose of this revision petition impleadment of legal representatives of defendantNo.3 is not required. 2. This revision is in challenge of order passed by learned Munsiff, Pathanamthitta in E.P.No.69 of 2009 in O.S.No.529 of 1996. That was a suit for declaration of right of easement over the disputed pathway and for injunction filed by respondents. That suit was decreed allowing declaration in respect of a way having width of 3 feet to be located or demarcated. Alleging that respondents did not take steps to execute the decree, petitioners filed E.P.No.69 of 2009 requesting the court to set out pathway as per the decree. Learned Munsiff observed that there is no decree in favour of petitioners and hence they could not maintain petition for execution. Accordingly, execution petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 contend that though the decree is not literally in favour of petitioners, their rights are affected by the decree in that they are restrained from enjoyment of the C.R.P.No.249 of 2010 : 2 : property till pathway is set out and hence the pathway had to be set out at the instance of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 or the respondent. Learned counsel for respondents submit that decree in O.S.No.529 of 1996 was challenged by the petitioners in appeal where respondents have preferred a cross objection challenging width of the pathway granted by the learned Munsiff. It is submitted that though appeal has been withdrawn by the petitioners, cross appeal is still pending consideration of the appellate court. 3. Now that the cross appeal preferred by the respondents challenging that part of the decree allowing pathway at a width of 3 feet is under consideration of the appellate court, petitioners cannot be allowed to execute decree at this stage. I therefore find no reason to interfere with the order at this stage but the question whether petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to execute decree is left open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. With the above observation the revision petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-