IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 2013 of 2003(E) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/09/2003 IN EA 41/2002 IN EP 88/97 IN OS.309/1972 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT/LRS OF JUDGEMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------- 1. MARIAKKUTTY,W/O.SRI.OUSEPH MATHAI, MURITHOTTATHIL VEEDU PALATHINKAL, THEKKEN MARADY KARA,MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. P.M.JOSEPH,S/O.LATE SRI.OUSEPH MATHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKEN MARADY KARA,MARADY VILLAGE. 3. P.M.MATHEW,S/O.LATE OUSEPH MATHAI, RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKEN MARADY KARA,MARADY VILLAGE. 4. P.M.GEORGE,S/O.LATE OUSEPH MATHAI, -DO- -DO- 5. P.M.JACOB,S/O.LATE OUSEPH MATHAI, -DO- -DO- 6. P.M.GRACY,D/O.LATEL OUSEPH MATHAI, NEETHIRICKAL,PERIYAPURAM, MULAKULLAM 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): PETITIONER/DICREE HOLDER -------------------------- VIDHADHIRAJA VINDHYA SAMAJAM, TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P.N.KRISHNA PILLAI. R1 BY MR.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADV.MR.SANTHARAM.P THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 2014 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P Nos.2013 OF 2003 AND 2014 OF 2003 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February 2010 ORDER Both these revisions are filed by the same set of persons who are the legal representatives of one Ouseph Mathai who was the defendant in O.S No.309 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Moovattupuzha. The above suit was one for recovery of possession. Decree passed in the above suit in favour of the plaintiff was challenged in appeal and also second appeal, but, unsuccessfully. The second appeal numbered as S.A No.463 of 1981 was dismissed by judgment dated 20/08/1990. After the disposal of the second appeal, claiming that the property had been transferred in its favour during the pendency of the second appeal, under a registered deed, one samajam, namely Vidhyadiraja Vidhaya Samajam, Thiruvananthapuram filed an execution petition for recovery of the property. The judgment debtor namely Ouseph Mathai filed objections disputing the assignment contending that the transfer had been effected by some incompetent persons, and not by the decree holders. While such objections were pending consideration, the judgment debtor passed away on 29/11/2001. Samajam, petitioner in the execution petition, thereupon moved two petitions, C.R.P Nos.2013 OF 2003 AND 2014 OF 2003 Page numbers E.A No.41/2002 on 03/04/2002 and another after one year, E.A No.96/2003 on 03/07/2003. The former petition, E.A No.41/2002 was filed for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor. The latter petition, E.A No.96/2003 was filed to condone the delay in filing the impleading petition. Though objections were raised by the proposed legal heirs of the judgment debtors, the present revision petitioners, both the applications were allowed by the execution court. The revisions are filed impeaching the correctness of those orders. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Prima facie it is seen that the second application filed as E.A No.96/2003 on 03/07/2003 to condone the delay in filing E.A No.41/2002 in which impleadment of the legal representatives of the judgment debtor was sought for, was quite unnecessary. So far as execution proceedings and final decree proceedings are concerned, there is no question of any abatement. So the only question is whether the order passed by the court below in E.A No.41/2002 allowing the impleadment is proper and correct. Status of the revision petitioners as the legal heirs of the judgment debtor is not under dispute and so much so, their impleadment in the execution petition is only proper and correct. If the objections canvassed by the judgment debtors as to the maintainability of the execution C.R.P Nos.2013 OF 2003 AND 2014 OF 2003 Page numbers petition has not been considered so far, needless to point out, before proceeding with further execution proceedings, that question has to be considered, and appropriate orders to be passed thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners have brought to my notice that while these revisions were pending before this court with an order of stay in force, the execution court has closed the execution petition with a direction that it will be reopened when the stay is vacated. A copy of the order dated 24/08/2007 passed in the above lines by the execution court has been handed over to me for perusal. The above order passed by the execution court is patently erroneous and in fact deserve to be taken serious note of. The court has in fact flouted the stay order issued by this court. However but taking note the lapse of time after passing of the above order rating up of that issue will not serve any purpose. There will be a direction to the court to take back the execution petition and dispose it in accordance with law irrespective of the aforesaid order dated 24/08/2007. Subject to the observations made above, both the revisions are disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE