IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 569 of 2009 ----------------------------- OS.NO.449/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANTHA POULOSE,W/O.POULOSE, PALAKKAL HOUSE,VENNUR DESOM,ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, MR.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------ KANAKAM TRADERS, ANNAMANADA DESOM,KALLUR THEKKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.569 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 03/10/2009 in E.P No.66 of 2009 in O.S No.449 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chalakudy. Judgment debtor in the above execution proceedings is the petitioner. The decree executed was passed in a suit for money instituted by a firm. Resisting the execution, petitioner/judgment debtor contended that the person representing the firm in the execution proceeding has no locus standie to execute the decree. That challenge was raised on the premise that in another suit he had disputed his status as partner of that firm. Admittedly, repelling the challenge so made the court rendered a judgment holding that he was a partner of the firm. Since C.R.P.No.569 OF 2009 Page numbers he had contended so in another suit as stated above he is incompetent to represent the firm and proceed with the execution of the decree is the objection canvassed by the judgment debtor. The learned Munsiff negatived that contention vide the order impugned in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The decree has been passed in favour of a firm. The person who moved the execution on behalf of the firm is/was a partner of a firm, even if it had been dissolved after institution of the suit is not material. The judgment debtor is incompetent to raise the objection canvassed on the plea that the person who has filed the execution petition had C.R.P.No.569 OF 2009 Page numbers disputed his status as a partner in a different suit. I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the court below leave alone any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv