IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 507 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2009 IN EA.175/09,EP.49/09 IN OS.100/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/R1/DECREE HOLDER-PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF THE HOLY CROSS,(ORDO CANONICORM REGULARIUM SANCTAE CRUCIS) FILIAL HOUSE,MARTHOMA BHAVANAM,HMT P.O.,KALAMASSERRY,REP.BY ITS SUPERIOR GENERAL,THROUGH THE P/A.HOLDER FR.JUSTIN, S/O.VARKEY,MAR THOMA BHAVANAM,KALAMASSERRY. BY ADV. MR.A.K.JOSE RESPONDENTS/ PETNR.&R2/NON PARTY&JUDGMENT DEBTOR/NON PARTY&DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AZEEZI,S/O.THATTIL MANDI JOSEPH, PUTHENPEEDIKA DESOM,ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. LONAPPAN,S/O.THATTIL LONAPPAN, ANTHIKKAD VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.507 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Revision is filed by the decree holder in E.P.No.49 of 2006 against the order dated 11.8.2009 in E.A.No.175 of 2009, an application moved by the first respondent in the execution proceedings contending that he has got independent possession over the decree schedule property and so much so, his claim over the property has to be adjudicated upon before further proceedings are taken in execution of the decree. That application was opposed to by the decree holder. The learned Munsiff after considering the objections negatived them under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. First respondent has filed a caveat. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the caveator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that anticipatory obstruction before a delivery warrant issued is not entertainable and so much so, the order passed by the court bellows imputed C.R.P.No.507 of 2009 2 in the revision is not sustainable. I cannot agree with the submission. Decree passed is in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. When it is brought to the notice of the execution court that a claim subsists over the property which is sought to be executed, it has to be examine the merit of that claim. If the claim prima facie not entertainable it can reject it. However where an enquiry on the claim is found necessary such enquiry is not liable to be relegated after the issue of delivery warrant. Further more, I find the revision against the order impugned is not maintainable as it would not result in the termination of the proceedings before the court and on that ground also the challenge against the impugned order has to fail. The dismissal of the revision will not preclude the decree holder from raising whatever objections available to him against the application moved by the first respondent as provided by law. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-