Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, a Revision Application was filed by the appellant on 30.6.2008 which was marked as R.P. No.593 of 2008 B .
The description of the property in the said decree was as under 8 cents of property with trees, building, well and a bunk mobile hut and all appurtenants thereto in Survey 365 described in Pandara Otti Partition Deed marked Vol II Plan , situated in Chengazhassery Village, Trivandrum.
Fanuval Stephen died on or about 28.3.1985.
First Respondent obtained a decree in a suit filed in the companyrt of Munsif, Trivandrum being Original Suit No.150 of 1965, wherein it was directed It is hereby decreed that the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property and it is directed that the wooden hut placed by the Defendant No.1 be removed by him at his expense, failing which the Court shall remove the same and deliver possession of the property to the Plaintiff.
The judgment debtor appears to have suffered another decree passed in Original Suit No.274 of 1982.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, being his heirs and legal representatives, were impleaded as additional decree holder Nos.2 to 6 therein.
The said appeal was held to be number maintainable by the learned First Appellate Court by an order dated 5.10.2005.
Execution Petition No.271 of 1986 was filed for execution of the said decree.
Appellant purchased the said property in auction.
Hence in any view of the matter this Revision Petition is well within time.
Registry shall return the certified companyies of documents produced by the appellants in this Execution Second Appeal to the companynsel for the appellants.
However, the merit of the matter was also companysidered therein.
No.4 in the appeal memorandum on which also the appeal was admitted is left open.
The said decree was put in execution by Fanuval Stephen, the Decree holder in Original Suit No.150 of 1965 being Execution Petition No.705 of 1977.
This Revision Petition is filed on 7.7.2008.
Along with the said application, an application for companydonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Act was also filed.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst on or about 3.10.2005 which was marked as AS No.301 of 2005.
By an order dated 6.9.2005, the said objection petition was rejected.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 13.6.2008, the High Court disposed of the said second appeal opining that the First Appellate Court was number companyrect in entering into the merit of the matter despite holding that the appeal was number maintainable.
However, later on the said application was withdrawn and an application under Section 14 thereof was filed.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5, however, filed a Second Execution Petition on or about 11.9.2001.
It is said to have been charged towards the satisfaction of the debt sought to be recovered in O.S. No.274 of 1982 by the State Bank of Travancore.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 6.9.2005, the appellants preferred an Execution Second Appeal before the High Court which was marked as Execution Second Appeal No.17 of 2005.
An affidavit was affirmed in support thereof, inter alia, stating The impugned order is dated 6.9.2005.
The said execution petition was dismissed by an order dated 8.7.1996.
A sale certificate was issued in respect of the suit property.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
The second appeal was disposed of by this Honble Court on 28.6.2008.
They filed an objection in regard to the maintainability of the said execution petition, inter alia, companytending that the same was barred by limitation.
Appellants were impleaded as Respondent Nos.16 and 17 therein.
The said appeal was disposed of, directing I am companyvinced that the request made by the learned companynsel for the appellants is necessitated by reason of the first appellate companyrt wrongly entering into merits of the case and companysidering the right of the appellants after holding that the appeal is number maintainable and that therefore, setting aside the judgment of the first appellate companyrt, the Execution Second Appeal deserves to be disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to move for appropriate reliefs by way of revision or otherwise, if so advised.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.50/ from the date of suit till delivery of possession.
Interpretation and or application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for short, the Act is in question in this appeal.
The first appeal was filed on 3.10.2005.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.11.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Kerala at Ernakulam in IA No.1895 in CRP No.593 of 2008 B dismissing the said application as barred by limitation.
