IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 97 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9/2/2010 IN EP 90/2007 IN OS.6/1995 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/CR. PETITIONERS 2 & 3 DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. DHAKSHAYANI LALITHA, D/O.DAKSHAYANI,"DARSANA", VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 2. SUDARSANAN NADAR RAHUL, S/O.SUDARSANAN NADAR,"DARSANA", VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) RESPONDENTS/PETITINERS/PLAINTIFFS & CR.PETITIONER NO.4 & DEFENDANT NO.4 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHAN NAIR,S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, CHENNAKAL VEEDU,VENGANOOR DESOM,VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 2. VILASINA AMMA, D/O.KAMALAMMA PILLAI, CHENNAKAL VEEDU,VENGANOOR DESOM,VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 3. RAJEEV.S.L, S/O. SUDARSANAN NADAR , "DARSANA", VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. NOW REIDING AT 255 A EDGWARE ROAD, THE HYBE, LONDON, NW 96LU. ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR FOR R1,R2. SRI ASWAKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.421/2010 IN CRP.NO.97/2010 ------------------------ DISMISSED 15/7/2010 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.NO.97 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 O R D E R Counter petitioners 2 and 3 in E.P.No.90/07 in O.S.No.6/95 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara are the revision petitioners. They are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The civil revision petition is filed against the final order dated 9th February, 2010 in the execution petition. The execution court held that the objections raised by the revision petitioners against the execution of the decree are unsustainable and devoid of any merit. 2. Petitioners in E.P. are the decree holders. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial court by judgment and decree dated 14/8/2002 decleared plaintiffs' title over the plaint A schedule properties and ordered recovery of plaint B schedule building from the defendants. The defendants are also restrained by a permanent -2- C.R.P.NO.97/10 prohibitory injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' right over the plaint schedule properties and from committing any act of waste and mischief. The appeal preferred by the defendants as A.S.No.515/2002 was dismissed by this Court as per judgment dated 30/4/2009. 2. Pending the E.P., third party filed E.A.No.212/08 claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. The execution court dismissed the said E.A. by order dated 8/2/2010 finding that the claim petitioner has no manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule properties. The claim petitioner preferred Ex.F.A.No.19/2010. This Court heard the appeal and dismissed the same today confirming the order passed by the execution court by separate judgment. 3. The revision petitioners objected the execution petition stating that the decree passed in O.S.No.6/95 is not executable for the reason that the decree was passed by the civil -3- C.R.P.NO.97/10 court without jurisdiction. According to the judgment debtors/defendants, the plaintiffs ought to have filed rent control petition before the rent control court for eviction and that only the rent control court has got jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. 4. Though the defendants/judgment debtors contested the suit seriously, they have no case that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to render a judgment in the suit. They have not raised any objection to the effect that only the rent control court has jurisdiction to try the matter. In the appeal preferred by the very same parties before this Court as A.S.No.515/2002, no such contention was raised. The execution court held that the present petition is without any merit and the attempt of the judgment debtors is only to prolong the case and prevent the decree holders from enjoying the fruits of the decree which they obtained as early as on 14/8/2002. 5. I have referred to the decree and judgment -4- C.R.P.NO.97/10 passed by the civil court and the Appellate Court. The revision petitioners have not contended before the said courts that they are tenants under the plaintiffs, nor they have a case that they are attorning rent to the plaintiffs and therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. So long as such contentions are not raised and the civil court has not entered a finding that the revision petitioners are tenants under the plaintiffs, it appears that the contention has no force. I do not find any merit in the objections raised. In the result, the CRP fails and accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv