IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 34 of 2002() -------------------- OS.204/1975 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA ................... REVN. PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF IN O.S.204/1975 ------------------------------------------------------------ RAMAKRISHNA NADAR RAYAPPAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, MURIYANKARA DESOM, PARASALA VILLAGE FROM PUTHUKKATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU VILAYAMOODE DESOM, VILAVAMOODU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.VPK.PANICKER SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.SREELEKHA PUTHALATH RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS 14,15 & 19 IN OS.204/75 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAYAPPAN NADAR JOHNSON, THEKKEPAROOR THALANIRAPUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, MURIYANKKARA DESOM, PARASSALA PAKUTHY. 2. RAYAPPAN NADAR DEVADASAN, THEKKEPPAROOR THALANIRAPUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, MURIYANKKARA DESOM, PARASSALA PAKUTHY. 3. RAYAPPAN NADAR RAJAMANI, THEKKEPAROOR THALANIRAPUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, MURIYINKARA DESOM, PARASSALA PAKUTHY. ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.70/02 IN CRP.NO.34/02 --------------------- DISMISSED 9/9/2010 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ------------------------------- C.R.P. NO.34 OF 2002 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 O R D E R Decree holder in E.P.No.188/1993 in O.S.No.204/1975 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara is the revision petitioner. The decree holder filed a petition for prosecuting the judgment debtors for violation of the decree passed in O.S.No.204/75. The execution court held that there is no averment in the execution petition that the judgment debtors violated the decree on any particular date and that the decree holder suffered any specific damage due to such act. The court below also held that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the judgment debtors wilfully and deliberately violated the decree. The court also observed that the decree holder has not turned up for giving evidence regarding the violation of the decree. The court below therefore dismissed the petition for prosecuting the judgment debtors for violation of the decree passed in the case. The findings -2- C.R.P.No.34/02 of the execution court are based on facts and for want of evidence. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that instead of dismissing the petition for violation of the decree, the execution court dismissed the execution petition itself. E.P. was filed not only for taking action for violation of the decree but also for delivery of the decree schedule property. 3. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The finding of the execution court that there is no proof regarding the violation of the decree is upheld. The execution court is directed to consider other questions, if any, raised by the decree holders in the execution petition and pass appropriate orders. C.R.P. is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.