SEBASTIAN JOSEPH Vs. CHERIAN VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Revision petitions arise from the orders in the execution of the decree in O.S 646 of 1989.

(2.) Revision petitioner in C.R.P.2002 of 1993 filed E.A.176 of 1992 under O.21 R.58 CPC and the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 2006 of 1993 filed E. A. 179 of 1992 under O.21 R.58 CPC. The said E.As were dismissed by orders dated 8.7.1993. The said orders are under challenge in these CRPs. These C.R.Ps. are disposed of by this common order as common question arises for determination in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) First respondent instituted O.S.646 of 1989 before the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam against respondents 2 and 3 for realisation of the money. Pending the suit, as per an order under O.38 R.5 CPC the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P 2002 of 1993 was attached. And the property of the revision petitioner in C.R.P. 2006 of 1993 also was attached before judgment under O.38 R.5 CPC. The suit was later decreed. On learning that the execution is being taken out against their properties, petitioners filed petitions under O.21 R.58 CPC. Both of them claimed right over the property as per sale deeds executed by the third respondent. They maintained that their properties are not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in the said suit. Petitioners would allege that though the claim petitions came up on several occasions, the first respondent did not file any objection. Later, they allege that the E.P. was dismissed as not pressed. On the date of dismissal of the E.P. itself the claim petitions filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. The impugned order reads: "E.P. dismissed. So EA also dismissed without prejudice to parties right if any".