IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 480 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/07/2009 IN EP 367/1981 IN OS.562/1957 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.K.SUCHEENDRAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. M.K.RAJAPPAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. M.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS: ------------------------------------- 1. DEVAKI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 2. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 3. VENUGOPALAN @ VIJAYAN, S/O.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA,KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. CRP 480/09 4. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBLAM, PAKUTHI. 5. RAVINDRAN, S/O.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 6. SURENDRAN, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.480 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 26th August, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.2009 in E.P.No.367 of 1981 in O.S.No.562 of 1957 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ernakulam. The judgment debtors 5 to 8 in the above E.P. are the petitioners. The decree holders have not deposited the cost ordered to be paid to the judgment debtors within the time fixed and so much so, the execution petition was liable to be dismissed is the case of the judgment debtors. Though several contentions were advanced to resist the execution of the decree and delivery of the property, all those contentions were negatived by the learned Munsiff under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. The execution taken from the decree for recovery of possession was dismissed for default of the decree holders not depositing the value of improvements. Subsequently, on the application of the decree holders with deposit of the value of improvements, the execution petition was restored. Challenge raised against the restoration of the petition by way of a Writ Petition before this court was not successful, but a direction was given that a sum of Rs.1501/- should be paid as cost to the judgment debtors. Though CRP 480/09 - 2 - there was a review from the judgment in the Writ Petition, that is not material as the question to be considered is whether the cost had been deposited or paid within the time fixed by this court. From the impugned order, it is seen that the decree holders deposited the cost on 4.8.2007 pursuant to the judgment dated 30.7.2007 before this court. Later receipt was produced before the execution court. This court has received the deposit by allowing the application moved by the decree holders. It is also seen from the order of this court that there was no objection to that application by the respondents/judgment debtors. Learned Munsiff noticing that the cost has been deposited within two weeks from 30.7.2007 before this court as directed in the judgment rendered in the Writ Petition found there is no merit in the objection raised by the judgment debtors against the restoration of the execution petition. I find no merit in the revision and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE