JOSEPH Vs. KURUVILLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions arise from an application under S. 22 (2) (a) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (XXXI of 1958) for setting aside a court sale of immovable property in execution of a decree. The sale was confirmed on 6121116 and part of the property was delivered over to the decree-holder auction-purchaser on 212 1958. The rest of the property is in the possession of a receiver appointed by court on 1121955 who reported that he took possession of the same on 5121955. The execution court dismissed the petition by orde r dated 23rd July 1959 and CRP. No. 208 by defendants 2 and 3 is directed against the said order. The defendants applied for review of the order dated 23 71959, and the execution court allowed the same on 25th august, 1959, setting aside the dismissal of the petition under S. 22. Plaintiffs 2 to 9 preferred an appeal before the District Court of Ernakulam from the order dated 25 81959 and the appeal was allowed holding that the execution court had no jurisdiction to review its order as the power of review was not expressly provided for by Act XXXI of 1958. Aggrieved by the appellate decision, defendants 2 and 3 have preferred C. R. P. No. 235 of 1960. The two revision petitions were heard together.

(2.) C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 must be dismissed on the short ground that the order dated 23 71959 which is sought to be revised is appealable as held in Narayani v. Govindan (1961 KLT. 312 ). It is true that the right of appeal was conferred only by Act II of 1961 long after this revision petition was filed and admitted, but as Raman Nayar J. has pointed out in the decision cited above, the amending Act (II of 1961)has been made retrospective and S. 23a which was added by the amending Act must be deemed to have come into force on 14-7-1958. Even if the Act had not been amended, I would have been inclined to hold on the strength of the decision in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar (AIR. 1948 PC. 12) that the party had a right of appeal. C. R. P. No. 208 of 1960 must therefore be dismissed.