IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 2410 of 2001() ---------------------- OS.56/1974 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, REP. BY MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT:JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------------------- *1. EXPORT INDIA COMPANY, PROPRIETOR, SIVARAMA MENON ROAD, NO.1287, REP. BY PROPRIETOR, S.JAYADEESH CHANDRAN. ( DELETED). **2. PULOMAJA DEVI, CHEMPAKASSERY HOUSE, ARYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.( D I E D) 3. SATHYACHANDRAN, CHEMPAKASSERY HOUSE, ARYASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NALINIGOVIL, THARANGINI, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. NIJANTHU CHANDRAN, NALINI INSTITUTE OF HOME SCIENCE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. Kss ..2/- ..2.... C.R.P.NO.2410/2001 6. DINESHCHANDRAN, CHEMPAKASSERY HOUSE, ARYASALA. *RESPONDENT 1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DTD. 03/10/07 IN I.A.2344/07. **ADDL.R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED: R7. MAHESH CHANDRA, RESIDING AT 19/155 PAVANKULANGARA ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. R8. UMESH CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.HIG 51, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN – 36. R9. PRIYA MOHAN, RESIDING AT E4, SAMHITA VILLAGE CROSS, 16B, 1ST ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 016. (**THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R2 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 22/02/2008 IN I.A.NO.1963/2007) BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 2410 OF 2001 --------------------- Dated this the 22ndday of February, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the First Addl. Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in EP 455/96 in OS 56/74. By the said order the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the EP for non-taking of steps. A revision is preferred against that order. The name of the first respondent is deleted and the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent are impleaded as supplemental respondents 7 to 9. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Commissioner ,who was appointed in the case for identification of the property, has not returned the warrant. Therefore the court passed an order directing the Commissioner to submit his report or in the alternative to return the warrant of the Commissioner. According to the petitioner, the court dismissed execution petition on the ground that steps were not taken to convey that order to the Commissioner. It is very strange practice and Commissioner is an officer of the court and it is for the court to send a notice to him to C.R.P. No.2410/01 2 return the warrant or to execute the warrant within the stipulated time. Therefore, the approach of the court below is totally erroneous and requires interference. 3. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the EP is restored to file. Since the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent has not entered appearance before this court and as it will be necessary to implead them also as a party in the execution petition, the decree holder herein can take steps to implead them after the matter is restored, and the court is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The decree holder is directed to appear before the court below on 24.3.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No.2410/01 3