IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 323 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2009 IN EP.874/2005 IN OS.105/2002 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, RNAKULAM .................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 3RD JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN EP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ K.K.SUNDARAM, S/O. KUNJANACHARI, AGED 38 YEARS, KOCHUKARIPPAL BUILDING, KARIMUGAL, PUTHENCRUZ, NOW RESIDING AT NJARAVELIL HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER & 1ST AND 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTORS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABY JOHN, W/O. JOHN, AGED 64 YEARS, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, EDAPPALLY, NOW RESIDING AT PLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, H.NO.66-D, SOUHRUTHA NAGAR, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-21. 2. M/S. SUVARNAM CHIT FUNDS, KOCHUKARIPPAL BUILDINGS, KARIMUKAL, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM-682 308. 3. V.N.REJI, S/O. NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, VALLAYIL HOUSE, IRUMPANAM P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, NOW RESIDING AT VALLAYIL HOUSE, BEHIND COMFORT STATION, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.323 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the execution court in E.A.No.84/2009 in E.P.No.874/2005 in O.S.NO.105/2004 restoring the E.P. dismissed for default. The decree holder after dismissal of the application moved an application for restoring the E.P with a petition to condone delay. The learned Munsiff noticing that no judicial order had been passed in E.P. in accordance with law, as it was dismissed for default restored the E.P to file. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings. 2. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Inviting my attention to Order XXI Rule 106(3) CPC it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is unsustainable under law and facts, I find it difficult to digest the submission of the learned counsel because it is noticed that no judicial order as contemplated by the rules had been C.R.P.No.323 of 2009 2 passed in the application when it was dismissed for default. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff in restoring the execution petition to file. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-