IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 500 of 2010() IN C.R.P.NO.2014 OF 2003 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.2014/2003 Dated 24/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. MARIAKUTTY, W/O. LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, MURITHOKOTTATHIL VEEDU, PALATHINKAL, THEKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. P.M. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL, THEKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. 3. P.M. MATHEW, S/O.LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. 4. P.M. GEORGE, S/O.LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. 5. P.M. JACOB, S/O.LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKEN MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. 6. P.M. GRACY, D/O.LATE OUSEPH MAHAI, NEETHIRICKAL, PERIYAPURAM, MULAKULAM.P.O, PIRAVAM. 7. P.M. MARY, D/O. LATE OUSEPH MATHAI, KANJIRAKKOMBIL VEEDU, PANDAPPILLY, THOTTAKKARA KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- VIDHADHIRAJA VINDHYA SAMAJAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P.N. KRISHNA PILLAI. BY ADV.SRI.P.SANTHARAM FOR RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.500 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.NO.2014 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the petitioners in the revision who had been impleaded as additional judgment debtors in the execution proceedings over the decree passed in O.S.No.309 of 1972 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Consequent to the death of the judgment debtor, the decree holder, who is stated to be an assignee under a deed, applied for impleadment of his legal representatives with a petition to condone delay. The order passed by the execution court allowing that application was challenged in the above revision. As this Court found no impropriety in the order passed by the execution court reserving the right of the revision petitioners, who have been added as additional judgment debtors in the execution proceedings, to raise whatever objections available to them under law to resist the execution of the decree, the revision was disposed of by order dated 24.2.2010. The present review R.P.500/10 2 petition has been filed submitting that at the time of hearing of the revision petition, the petitioners could not bring to the notice of this Court a valid and tenable objection available to them to resist the decree in as much as the original decree holder had cancelled the assignment made in favour of the assignee, the respondent in the revision, who is presently prosecuting the execution of the decree. The learned counsel for the review petitioners want this Court to make some observations with respect to that challenge also so that such objection is not turned down by the execution court for the reason it had not been brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of this revision. I do not find any merit in the apprehension raised by the review petitioners as it is noticed that their objections to the executability of the decree is yet to be considered by the execution court. It is open to them to raise whatever objections available to them under law before the execution court. The review petition is closed with the above observation. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp //true copy//