IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 1039 of 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2003 IN EA.NO.1420/95 IN EP.NO.542/92 IN OS.NO.369/1979 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------------------- SRI.URMESE S/O. MATHU, VAZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS & 1ST PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER & 1ST J.D. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANTHONY, S/O. KANNAMPUZHA ANTONY KIZHAKKUM MURI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. TOMY, S/O. PAYYAPPILLY JOSEPH, KORATTY P.O. 3. MATHU, S/O. VEZHAPARAMBIL URMESE, VAZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI, MUKUNDAPURAM (DIED) R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1039 OF 2004 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th April, 2008 O R D E R This Revision is filed by Urmese, one of the judgment debtors challenging the order dated 28.11.2003 in E.A.No.1420 of 1995 in E.P.No.542 of 1992 in O.S.No.369 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. By the order impugned, the court below fixed the value of improvements at Rs.26,605/-. The contention of the revision petitioner is that he is entitled to a higher amount as the value of improvements. He has raised various contentions in the Revision in support of the claim for a higher amount. 2. Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/decree holder, submitted that the second respondent challenged the very same order dated 28.11.2003 in W.P.(C)No.15297 of 2004. Ext.P6 referred to in the Writ Petition is the order impugned in this Revision. As per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.15297 of 2004, dated 18.6.2007, certain directions have been issued as to how the matter should be considered and a fresh decision should be taken. The order dated 28.11.2003 was set aside in W.P.(C)No.15297 of 2004. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition has practically C.R.P. NO.1039 OF 2004 :: 2 :: become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner. It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Revision Petition are left open. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/