IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 125 of 2011() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2011 IN E.P.NO. 193/09 IN O.S.NO.436/1985 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA JOSEPH, PAYIKKATTU KAREETHRA, AMICHAKARI MURI, CHAMPAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. BIJUMON JOSEPH, PAYIKKATTU KAREETHRA, AMICHAKARI MURI, CHAMPAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ----------------------------------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, B-601, NABARD STAFF QUARTERS, DY.PAI ROAD, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 004 BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 125 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011. ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 14.1.2011 in E.P. 193 of 2009 in O.S. 436 of 1985 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. The petitioner suffered a decree for recovery of possession and execution was taken out by the decree holder. Before the initiation of execution proceedings, the decree holder died and his legal representatives initiated execution. 2. The judgment debtors have come forward with an objection that all the legal heirs are not shown as legal representatives and the E.P. is not maintainable. The court below pointed out that only the legal representatives need be impleaded and it is not necessary that all the legal heirs should be brought on the party array. Accordingly, it rejected the objection. C.R.P.125/2011. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 284 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which reads as follows: “284. Application by one of joint decree holders.-(1) Where an application is made by one or more of several joint decree holders, unless a written authority signed by the other decree holders enabling the applicant or applicants themselves to execute the decree and to receive or realise any money or property to be recovered under the decree, is filed in Court, the Court shall give notice of the application to the other decree holders before allowing execution. (2) Every such application shall state the names and addresses for service of the decree holders who have not joined the execution petition, and, if any of them is not alive, the names and addresses of their legal representatives and the reasons, if any, why the application is not made jointly by all the decree holders.” 4. Unfortunately that Rule can have no application in the case on hand. That Rule is in consonance with Order C.R.P.125/2011. 3 21 Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below was therefore perfectly justified in rejecting the contention raised by the judgment debtors. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order. This revision petition is without merits and it is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.