IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 310 of 2003(E) --------------------------------- (E.P.NO.36/1998 IN O.S. NO.16/1986 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------ CANARA BANK, MALAPPURAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS LAW OFFICER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHENOY'S CHAMBERS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON. RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KELU, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. 2. N.KRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAN, NECHIKKATTU HOUSE, P.O. MALAPPURAM. 3. P.K.KRISHNAN, S/O. CHANDU, KOONCHILLATHU HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, MANJERI. R2 BY ADV.SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ . THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.310 of 2003 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This revision is directed against the order dated 5.7.2002 in E.P.No.36/98 in O.S.No.16/86 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Manjeri. The decree holder is the revision petitioner. Decree being executed was passed in a suit for money. It is seen from the impugned order that the decree provided for realisation of the decree debt first against the principal debtor, the first judgment debtor, and, only after exhausting all remedies available against that judgment debtor and his assets, it could be executed against the other judgment debtors, 2nd and 3rd judgment debtors. 2. When an execution proceedings were taken earlier, only the 2nd judgment debtor contested and that proceedings were closed, taking note of the directions in the decree that the decree holder has to exhaust all his C.R.P.No.310 of 2003 :: 2 :: remedies against the principal judgment debtor and his assets at the first instance and then only against the other judgment debtors. Admittedly, after the disposal of at execution petition, the decree holder initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the principal debtor/1st judgment debtor. The revenue officials reporting that the first judgment debtor had no tangible assets, a fresh execution petition, E.P.No.36/98 was filed as against the 2nd judgment debtor alone. The 2nd judgment debtor raised his objections canvassed earlier that execution of the decree has to proceed against the principal judgment debtor and if only it is ineffective, the other judgment debtors can be proceeded with. He also produced some documents to show that the 1st judgment debtor is possessed of immovable properties. He further contended that the 1st judgment debtor was a Military Pensionar enjoying pension. The learned Sub Judge, on the materials produced and also taking note of C.R.P.No.310 of 2003 :: 3 :: the direction in the decree and the order passed in the previous execution petition, accepted the objections canvassed by the 2nd judgment debtor and dismissed the execution petition. That order is challenged in this revision. 3. Revision filed nearly 7 years ago continued on the file of this Court for the reason that service as against the 3rd judgment debtor has not been effected. Since the 3rd judgment debtor was not a party in the execution petition filed by the decree holder, which has given rise to this revision, I find no notice need be served on the 3rd judgment debtor, though he had been made as a party in the revision. Notice to the 3rd judgment debtor is, therefore, dispensed with. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree holder. 5. Perusing the impugned order, with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find no impropriety or C.R.P.No.310 of 2003 :: 4 :: illegality in the order passed by the execution court in dismissing the execution petition, expressing the view that the petitioner/decree holder has to exhaust his remedies for realisation of the decree debt at the first instance against the principal debtor/1st judgment debtor and then only against the other judgment debtors. Merely because the decree holder bank has taken some steps against the principal debtor by way of revenue recovery proceedings, which are stated to be ineffective in view of the report filed by the revenue officers that the principal debtor is not possessed of any properties, no conclusion can be formed that he has no properties either movable or immovable. It is also not shown why personal execution is not possible against the 1st judgment debtor, the principal debtor. In the light of the specific direction in the decree that its execution has to proceed against the principal debtor in the first instance and only if it is found ineffective, C.R.P.No.310 of 2003 :: 5 :: then alone against the other judgment debtors I find that the order passed by the court below dismissing the execution petition moved against the 2nd judgment debtor alone does not warrant any interference. Revision petition lacks, and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//