IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 414 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2009 IN EP.120/2005 IN OS.16/1992 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): LEGAL HEIRS OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 2,4,5 & 6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI KRISHNA KUMAR @ SAROJINI AMMA.M ATGED 64 YEARS,W/O.LATE KRISHNA KUMAR,THOTTATHIL HOUSE,NOW RESIDING AT SAROJA BHAVAN,CHAMPAKKARA KARA,CHAMPAKKARA.P.O,KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JAISON.A.K,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAKUMAR,SAROJA BHAVAN,CHAMPAKARA KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE,CHAMPAKKARA.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JAYADEVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA KUMAR,SAROJA BHAVAN,CHAMPAKKARA KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE,CHAMPAKKARA.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SADANAND.A.K,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAKUMAR,SAROJA BHAVAN,CHAMPAKARA KARA, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE,CHAMPAKKAR.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.JACOB GEORGE (PATHAZHAKKUZHIKAL), MR.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL, MR.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE, MR.V.J.JOHN. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/ADDL.3RD DEFENDANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUSEELA DEVI,W/O.C.P.THANKAPPAN, ANIYARA HOUSE,CHAMPAKKARA KARA,KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANJALI DEVI.A.K,W/O.THANKACHAN.N.M, THADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE,CHINGAVANAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P No.414 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R The revision is filed against the order dated 18/03/2009 in E.P No. 120/2005 in O.S No. 16/1992 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam. Petitioners are the legal heirs of the judgment debtors in the above E.P brought in by way of substitution on the death of the original judgment debtor / the defendant in the suit. Suit was one for specific performance and it was decreed. The decree directed the plaintiff / decree holder to deposit the balance amount due towards the agreement of sale within a period of two months. The question involved whether the decree holder had remitted the amount in compliance with the decree or not, had given rise to an C.R.P No.414 OF 2009 Page numbers earlier proceeding before this court at the instance of the decree holder. Execution court dismissed the execution holding that the amount was deposited after the time limit fixed under the decree. In the revision filed by the decree holder numbered as C.R.P 1116/2007 this court setting aside the dismissal of the execution petition directed that court to reexamine that question after prima facie being satisfied from the copy of chalan receipt produced that remittance was made within the time fixed under the decree for such deposit. Disposing the revision, this court has directed the execution court to consider the legality or correctness of the matter directing both parties to supply materials and produce records in such enquiry. After such remission the question was considered afresh and, after examining the court records and also relevant materials, the learned Additional Sub Judge was satisfied that deposit had been made by the decree holder in compliance with and within the time limit fixed C.R.P No.414 OF 2009 Page numbers under the decree. So much so, the challenge raised against the execution of the decree by the judgment debtors on the ground that no deposit was made within the time limit covered by the decree was negatived and the decree holder was directed to take further steps to pursue the execution of the decree. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the present revision by the petitioners contending that the order suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. 2. The respondents herein / the decree holder had filed a caveat and notice on the petition was given to the caveator. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the caveator. From the submissions made and having regard to the facts and circumstances presented I find no notice is necessary to the other respondents, and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, I find that after examining the relevant records including the Civil Court C.R.P No.414 OF 2009 Page numbers Deposit Register (CCD) of the court the execution court was satisfied that the remittance of Rs.25,000/- was made by the decree holder in the treasury on 27/04/1995. Remittance was made by the counsel appearing for the decree holder on the basis of a chalan issued by the court before the bank in the CCD account of the court on 27/04/1995. But in the CCD register of the court the deposit was entered only on 27/05/1995. If the deposit had been made on 27/04/1995 before the bank as per the chalan issued by the court that too relating to the CCD account of the court needless to point out that such deposit has to be treated as having been made in compliance with the time limit fixed under the decree. The entry regarding such deposit was later recorded one month later, in the CCD register cannot have any significance when deposit was made in time. That was the view taken by the learned Additional Sub Judge which I find acceptable and reasonable. The learned counsel for the petitioner however disputes the statement so made in the C.R.P No.414 OF 2009 Page numbers impugned order expressed by the learned Sub Judge, after verification of the records. If the petitioners have got any challenge against the finding so made by the judicial officer, after verifying the registers relating to the payment made, they have to challenge the correctness of that finding filing a review petition before the concerned court, if so advised, as envisaged by law. I make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion that if at all such a review petition is filed it is to be entertained and disposed, on merits, but only that the writ petition is not the remedy to raise such a challenge canvassed that too invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv