IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 874 of 2008() --------------------- CMA.9/2008 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.5: --------------------- BIJU THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, VETTUVELIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERI, TRIPUNITHURA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN CMA: --------------- 1. MARIAMMA, W/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 62 YEARS THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. 2. JOHNY, S/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 35 YEARS, THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. 3. JOY, S/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 33 YEARS, THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. 4. JOSHY, S/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 31 YEARS, THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. 5. PRINCE ITTEN, S/O.ITTEN, AGED 64, AGRICULTURIST, CHATHUMUTHIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY DESOM, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE. 6. CICILY, D/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 43 YEARS, THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. 7. VALSALA, D/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 42 YEARS THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. CRP.874/08 8. SHEELA, D/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 40 YEARS THOTTAMKUNNEL HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, NADAMA DESOM, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2113/09 IN CRP.874/08 DISMISSED 22.12.2009 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.874 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the auction purchaser in E.P.No.776 of 2005 in O.S.No.1236 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. After deposit of the sale price, an application was moved by the judgment debtor contending that the sale is vitiated by fraud and material irregularity under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application, after enquiry, was dismissed by the execution court. Against which, the judgment debtor preferred a C.M.Appeal. In the appeal, the order of the execution court was reversed and the sale was set aside. Challenge in the revision is against the judgment so rendered by the appellate court. 2. At the time of hearing, the counsel on both sides C.R.P.874/08 2 submit that the parties have settled the matter out of court. Since the parties have resolved the disputes by themselves, nothing survives for consideration in the revision. The auction purchaser had deposited a sum of Rs.5,44,000/- towards the sale price. The execution court is directed to release that amount to the auction purchaser as early as possible. Revision is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp