IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 624 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2009 IN EP. 583 /2002 IN OS.266/1989 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/8TH JUDGMENT DEBTOR/9TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN V.R., AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.L. RAPPAI, VADAKKETHAL, PEARL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.PRAMOD DAS LOHYA SMT.B.MEERA RESPONDENS/DECREE HOLDERS(ASSIGNEES) AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 7 & 9 TO 18(DEFENDANTS 1,2,4-8,10-15 & 17-20): --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI. JOHNY JOHN, S/O. JOHN, KANNAMPALLY HOUSE, PARIYARAM DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SRI. RAJAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, VATTOLI HOUSE, CHALAKKUDY DESOM EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. M/S JAYA FINANCES, ERNAKULAM. 4. MS.. THANKAMMA, D/O. SANKURIKKAL VARGHESE, PALARIVATTOM, DESOM KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 5. MR. JOHN, S/O. KANNAMPILLY LONAKUNJI,PARIYARAM DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. MR. JOSE, S/O. MANIYAKKU ANTONY, THORUVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 7. MRS. PHILOMINA, W/O. KURUKULAM AUGUSTINE, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. CRP 624/09 8. MRS. LOOSY, W/O. CHASTHAMPADIKKAL THANKACHAN, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 9. MR. VARGHESE, S/O. VATTOLI, CHAMMURU, KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 10. MR. MATHEW, S/O. CHIRAKKAKARU PAULOSE, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 11. MRS. SHERLY, W/O. MAMPILLY LAZAR, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 12. MRS. ROSLY, W/O. KANICHAYIJOSE, VYUTHALI DESOM KALLUR VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUM 13. MR. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SINDU PAWAR, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 14. MR. KOCHUPAILY, S/O. KATTI CHAKKU AUGUSTINE,KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 15. MRS. MARY, W/O. MALIKKAL RAPPAI, KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 16. MR. BABU, S/O. CHIRAYANKANDATH PALU, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 17. MR. THOMAS, S/O. CHIRAYANKANDATH GEORGE, MYLIPPADAM DESOM, THRISSUR,TALUK. 18. MR. JOHN, S/O. MANIYAKKU PAULOSE, THORAVU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 19. MR. ANTO, S/O. KONIKKARA DAVIS, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.624 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th November, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 3.10.2009 in E.P.No.583 of 2002 in O.S.No.266 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Petitioner is the 8th judgment debtor in the above execution petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the assignees of the decree passed in a suit for money. Respondents 3 to 19 are other judgment debtors. The execution court under the impugned order has directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.50,000/-. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents, especially the assignee decree holders, is called for, and hence, it is dispensed with. The assignee decree holders are the sons of judgment debtors 3 and 7, and so much so, as the right and liability under the decree have become united on the same persons, the liability or the debt is extinguished pro tanto, and so much so, the assignee decree holders cannot execute the decree against the other CRP No.624/09 - 2 - judgment debtors is the argument canvassed by the learned counsel to assail the order passed by the court below. Reliance is placed on Krishna Pillai v. Philip (1966 KLT 874) to contend that when there is a coalescence of the right and liability under the decree, the assignee decree holders who happen to be the legal representatives of the two judgment debtors cannot execute the decree as against the other judgment debtors on the basis of the assignment of the decree in their favour. Perusing the memorandum of revision with reference to the submissions made by the counsel and also the impugned order passed by the court below, it is noticed whatever challenges raised by the petitioner/8th judgment debtor against the executability of the decree of assignment of the decree by the assignee holders 1 and 2/respondents had been negatived by the court much earlier and pursuant thereto on a previous occasion warrant had been issued against the revision petitioner for his arrest and detention as one of the modes for executing the decree. That coercive step to realise the decree debt was avoided by the revision petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the decree debt. Even paragraph 5 of the revision which summarises the nature of the objections canvassed by the revision petitioner does not disclose that CRP No.624/09 - 3 - at any point of time earlier any objection as to the executability of the decree on the ground canvassed in the revision was raised before the execution court. A judgment debtor cannot be permitted to take objections to the executability of the decree once his objections on that point had been previously decided by the execution court holding that the decree is executable. Not only that there is nothing to indicate that the objection now raised in the revision as against the executability of the decree had been canvassed before the execution court earlier when it decided the question of executability of the decree, which was challenged by the revision petitioner/8th judgment debtor on other grounds, no ground is canvassed in the revision that the decree has become inexecutable at the instance of the assignee decree holders subsequent to the order passed by the execution court on its executability. There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE