IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 615 of 2004(G) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2003 IN EP.NO.229/2003 IN OS.200/1982 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/DECREEHOLDERS. ---------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.APPUNNI. 2. BABU, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN. 3. ROSHAN, S/O.CHIDAMBARAN, DO. 4. ANNAMMA, D/O.THANKA, DO. 5. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.THANKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT PAPPANCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR. ---------------------------------------- VISWANATHAN S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT PAPPANCHALLAM, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 615 OF 2004 G -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd April, 2008 O R D E R The decree holders in O.S.No.200 of 1982, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Chittur, have challenged in this Revision Petition the order dated 4.12.2003 in E.P.No.229 of 2003, by which the application filed by them under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the court below. The allegation in the Execution Petition was that in violation of the decree the judgment debtor obstructed the sixth decree holder from taking usufructs from the property. The suit was for recovery of possession and the trial court had granted a decree, which was confirmed in appeal and Second Appeal. As per the order in E.P.No.301 of 1999 the property was delivered to the decree holders on 25.5.2000. 2. The contention of the respondent/judgment debtor was that the decree holders were not obstructed either by him or by his children. He contended that he had never acted in violation of the decree. The court below held that as per the decree no permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the decree holders was granted. On that ground it was held that there was no wilful disobedience of the injunction and the judgment debtor C.R.P. NO.615 OF 2004 :: 2 :: cannot be proceeded against under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent died after the Revision was filed. The act complained of, which, according to the decree holders, was in violation of the decree, was made against the judgment debtor. Such a cause of action would not survive against his legal representatives. The Civil Revision Petition has, therefore, become infructuous. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the order passed by the court below or this order would not preclude the petitioners from putting forward their contention that the decree can be enforced appropriately against the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. Such contention, if raised, would be dealt with in accordance with law in the proceedings which the decree holders may take in future. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/