IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 97 of 2009E AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2008 IN E.A.NO.982/2004 IN E.P.NO.54/2004 IN OS.137/1997 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM REVN. PETITIONERS: CLAIM PETITIONERS 1. JAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAMUEL.E, SHIBU BHAVAN, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, MANIKANTA MANDHIRAM, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANOHARAN NAIR, S/O. KRISHNAN PILLAI, MANJU VILASAM, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: CR.PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: 1. K. HARIKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, UDAYAMPARA, NEDUMON MURI, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUDHEVAN, S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, VIJAYA MANDHIRAM, PATHIRAPPALLY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, MUKKOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHYLAJAKUMARI, W/O. SUDEVAN, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, PATHIRAPPALY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, MUKKOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK OFFICE, PAZHAKUTTY, NEDUMANGAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 97 OF 2009 E ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th February, 2009 O R D E R The first respondent obtained a decree against the second respondent. The third respondent is the surety to the second respondent. In execution of the decree, the first respondent got an order of attachment of the amounts payable by the fourth respondent to the second respondent. The contention of the petitioners, who are the claim petitioners, is that the amount payable to the second respondent by the fourth respondent is in the capacity of the second respondent as the convener of Peoples Planning Programme and not in his individual capacity. The petitioners, therefore, contended that the decree, which the first respondent has obtained against the second respondent in his personal capacity, cannot be executed by way of attachment and realisation of the amount payable by the fourth respondent to the second respondent. The court below rejected the contention put forward by the petitioners by the order dated 20.12.2008, which is under challenge in this Revision. C.R.P. NO. 97 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 2. The attachment in question comes under Rule 46 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The claim made by the petitioners would arise under Rule 46D and the order passed thereon is under Rule 46E. Such an order passed at the instance of third party is deemed to be a decree and it is appealable as a decree under Rule 46H of Order XXI. Therefore, the Revision is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition with liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. 3. From the certified copy of the order impugned, it is seen that the order was passed on 20.12.2008, copy application was submitted on 22.12.2008, stamp papers were called for on 12.1.2009 and they were supplied on 13.1.2009. The date notified for appearance to receive the copy was 19.1.2009 and the copy was delivered on 15.1.2009. The Civil Revision Petition was filed on 30.1.2009. If thirty days' period is taken as the time for filing the appeal, the Civil Revision Petition was filed within that time. In computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, the Appellate Court shall take note of these facts and exclude the period from C.R.P. NO. 97 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 30.1.2009 (the date of filing of the Revision) to 16.2.2009 (the date of dismissal of this Revision Petition). The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. Registry shall return the certified copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioners after substituting a true copy. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/