IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 863 of 2005(I) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2005 IN EP.NO.168/2004 IN OS.1389/1989 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S. VALIAVEETTIL CHITTIES AND FINANCIERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V.E. ABDUL SUKKOOR, S/O. ISAMAIL VALILAVEETTIL, VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, AGED 65,THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY SRI.P.F.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP VARGHESE, SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE. RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.MUHAMMAD ALI, S/O. ADIMAKUNJU, AGED ABOUT 53, RESIDING AT KUZHIYILAKKATHOOT HOUSE, THURUTHUMMEL DESOM, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA. *2. HASSAN, S/O. HYDROSE, ( D E L E T E D) MADATHIPARAMBIL, AGED ABOUT 59, RESIDING AT NEAR BHARAT MATHA COLLEGE, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKKARA SOUTH VILLAGE. * 3. SUHRA, W/O. HASSAN, ( D E L E T E D) AGED ABOUT 46, HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS, RESIDING AT NEAR BHARAT MATHA COLLEGE, KAKKANADU,THRIKKAKKARA SOUTH VILLAGE. *RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE REMOVED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS TO CONSEQUENCES VIDE ORDER DATED 13/12/2010 IN I.A.NO.3065/2010 IN CRP NO.863/2005. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. NO.863 of 2005 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This revision is filed challenging dismissal of E.P. No.168 of 2004 in O.S No.1389 of 1989 of the court of learned Munsiff, Aluva. Petitioner wanted to execute the decree against respondent (No.1) and two others (respondent Nos.2 and 3 were deleted from the array of parties as per order dated 13.12.2010). On July 6, 2005 execution petition was dismissed for the reason that petitioner has not furnished address of judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 (who are now deleted from the array of parties) and that there was no proper representation as counsel for petitioner remained absent. Learned counsel for petitioner wants to proceed only against respondent (No.1)/judgment debtor No.1. It is also submitted that there was no willful laches on the part of petitioner in not making representation in the executing court on July 6, 2005. Learned counsel submits that since the decree is of the year, 1992 on account of limitation petitioner is not able to file fresh execution petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that petitioner should be given opportunity to proceed with the execution petition. C.R.P. No.863 of 2005 -: 2 :- Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order dated July 6, 2005 E.P. No.168 of 2004 in O.S. No.1389 of 1989 of the court of learned Munsiff, Aluva is set aside to the extent it concerned respondent (No.1)/judgment debtor No.1 and E.P. No.168 of 2004 will stand restored to file to that extent. Executing court is directed to proceed against respondent (No.1) as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv