IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 255 of 2010(C) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.R.P.NO.624/2009 DATED 24/11/2009) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER/8TH JUDGMENT DEBTOR(9TH DEFENDANT): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN.V.R, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.V.L.RAPPAI,VADAKKETHALA,PEARL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM,KOCHI-25. BY ADVS. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, MR.MANU GOVIND, MR.PRAMOD DAS LOHYA, SMT.B.MEERA. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS (ASSIGNEES)AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 7 & 9 TO 18 (DEFENDANTS 1,2,4-8, 10-15 AND 17-20) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.JOHNY JOHN,S/O.JOHN,KANNAMPALLY HOUSE,PARIYARAM DESOM,PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SRI.RAJAN VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE,VATTOLI HOUSE,CHALAKKUDY DESOM,EAST CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. M/S.JAYA FINANCES,ERNAKULAM. 4. M.S.THANKAMMA,D/O.SANKURIKKAL VARGHESE, PALARIVATTOM DESOM,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM. 5. MR.JOHN,S/O.KANNAMPILLY LONAKUNJI, PARIYARAM DESOM,PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. MR.JOSE,S/O.MANIYAKKU ANTONY,THORUVU VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. R.P. NO. 255/2010-C: 7. MRS.PHILOMINA,W/O.KURUKULAM AUGUSTINE, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 8. MRS.LOOSY,W/O.CHASTHAMPADIKKAL THANKACHAN,PALARIVATTOM DESOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 9. MR.VARGHESE,S/O.VATTOLI CHUMMARU, KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 10. MR.MATHEW,S/O.CHIRAKKAKARAU PAULOSE, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 11. MRS.SHERLY,W/O.MAMPILLY LAZAR, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 12. MRS.ROSLY,W/O.KANICHAYI JOSE,VYUTHALI DESOM,KALLUR VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 13. MR.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.SINDU PAWAR, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 14. MR.KOCHUPAILY,S/O.KATTI CHAKKU AUGUSTINE, KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 15. MRS.MARY,W/O.MALIAKKAL RAPPAI,KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 16. MR.BABU,S/O.CHIRIYANKANDATH PALU, THRISSUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 17. MR.THOMAS,S/O.CHIRIYANKANDATH GEORGE, MYLIPPADAM DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. 18. MR.JOHN,S/O.MANIYAKKU PAULOSE,THORAVU VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 19. MR.ANTO,S/O.KONIKKARA DAVIS, THRIKKANARVATTOMM DESOM,ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.255 OF 2010 IN C.R.P.NO.624 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010 O R D E R I heard the learned counsel on the merit of the review petition. There is an error apparent on the face of the order passed in the revision is the ground canvassed for review. Executability of the decree was never considered by the execution court earlier, and so much so, the challenges raised as to the entitlement of the assignee to execute the decree which was raised in the execution and later in the revision petition, deserve to be considered on its merits, is the submission of the counsel. The counsel fairly submitted that there was an earlier order in the execution proceedings issuing of warrant against the petitioner/8th judgment debtor for realisation of the decree debt and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was deposited. Admittedly, the question which had been canvassed challenging the executability of the decree was never canvassed earlier. In otherwards, the competency of RP.255/10 2 the assignee to execute the decree was not impeached when the petitioner moved for withdrawal of the distraint steps taken against him by depositing the sum of Rs.20,000/- as part of the decree debt due under the decree. After going through the order rendered by this Court in the revision with reference to the submissions made, I am not satisfied of the grounds canvassed for reviewing the order passed in the revision petition. Review petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp