IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 1235 of 2003()
1. M.P. LATHIKA @ LATHA AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KUNJAMMA CHERIYAN, W/O. CHERIYAN,
... Respondent
2. P.K. DASAN, S/O. KUTTY, PARAKKATTU HOUSE
3. P.K. KUTTY, PARAKATTU HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SUBRAMANIAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.ELDHO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :24/03/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
----------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.1235 OF 2003
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008
O R D E R
When the revision came up on earlier occasions, there was
no representation for the petitioner. The learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent submitted that the revision has
become infructuous. The first respondent in the revision has filed
I.A.No.774/08 stating all the relevant facts which would indicate
that the revision has become infructuous.
2. The revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.928/02
in E.P.No.88/96 by which the Court below declined to grant
further time for payment of the decree amount in order to get
redelivery of the property.
3. The first respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.88/96
for execution of the money decree. The property attached before
judgment was brought to sale. In the Court auction sale, the
decree holder purchased the property. When delivery was
attempted, the revision petitioner obstructed. E.A.No.932/2000
was filed by the petitioner while E.A.403/2000 was filed by the
C.R.P.1235/03 -2-
decree holder under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. The executing Court
held that the revision petitioner has no title to the property and that
the obstruction made by him is liable to be removed. Against that
order, E.F.A.1/01 was filed by the revision petitioner. The E.F.A. was
dismissed against which A.F.A. 64/02 was filed by her. That A.F.A was
also dismissed.
4. At the time of disposal of E.F.A..No.1/01, this Court had
granted time to the petitioner to pay the decree amount on or before
29.3.2002. The amount was not paid within time. Though the revision
petitioner filed R.P.No.183/02 against the order in E.F.A.No.1/01, that
review petition was also dismissed.
5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the affidavit
accompanying I.A.No.774/08, nothing survives in this Civil Revision
Petition.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.
dsn