IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 707 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2008 IN E.P. NO. 22/2008 IN OS.347/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- KANTHASWAMI KOUNDER, S/O. CHENNIMALA KOUNDER, KINARPALLAM KALAM, OZHALAPPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------------- KANNAMMA, W/O. GOVINDASWAMI KOUNDER, OZHALPPATHI, OZHALAPPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C.R.P. No. 707 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the respondent/defendant in E.P. No. 22 of 2008 in O.S. No. 347 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur which was a suit for money, challenges the order dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Executing Court in E.P permitting the respondent herein to proceed with the E.P on the strength of a succession certificate issued by the competent court and posting the case for enquiry under order 21 Rule 40 C.P.C. regarding the plea of “no means” set up by the revision petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner herein, the respondent is not the wife of deceased Govindaswami Kounder in the suit for money filed by the said Govindaswami Kounder and that the succession certificate was obtained by her suppressing material facts and she not being the legal wedded wife of the said Govindaswami Kounder, was incompetent to continue the execution petition. C.R.P. No. 707/2008 : 2: 3. The only question is whether the respondent herein, is a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff entitled to continue the execution petition. Admittedly, she has obtained a succession certificate entitling her to continue the E.P. She need not be a legal heir of the deceased plaintiff in accordance with the law of inherence governing the parties. She need only be a legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) C.P.C as per which even a person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased is a legal representative. The objection raised by the petitioner was thus rightly overruled by the Executing Court and the case has been posted for enquiry under Order 21 Rule 40 C.P.C. I see no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv C.R.P. No. 707/2008 : 3: