IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1001 of 2001(A) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2001 IN EA.106,107,108/1999 IN RCOP.1/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ JOHNSON JOHN SAMUEL PUNNARA VEEDU, CHEMMANTHOOR PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.V.PREMCHAND SRI.N.MAHESH SMT.ASHA JYOTHI RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER IN E.A.NOS.106/99 & E.A.NO.107/99 AND COUNTER PETITIONER IN E.A.NO.108/99 ------------------ 1. S.N.TRUST, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VELLAPPALLY NADESAN 2. L.SEELAS, AMIN MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1001 OF 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner before this court is the first judgment debtor. The delivery of the schedule building was effected and the E.P. was closed on 12.11.1999. The court below in E.A.No.106 of 1999 held that there is no evidence to show that the Amin of this court dispossessed petitioner from 60 cents of landed property and that the delivery was effected with respect to the schedule building alone as per the order of this court. Accordingly, E.A.No.107 and 108 of 1999 were also dismissed. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Amin instead of delivering the decree schedule property, illegally and unauthorisedly dispossessed the revision petitioner from 60 cents of property in survey No.412/93 of Punalur Village. According to the petitioner, the decree holder obtained 60 cents of property illegally under the pretext of the delivery. When the matter came up for final hearing, it is reported that the revision petitioner is no more. The legal heirs of the CRP1001/2001 2 revision petitioner are not impleaded. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is closed reserving liberty to the legal heirs of the revision petitioner to pursue their grievances, if any, before the proper Forum. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge csl