This revision is filed by the judgment-debtors 1 and 2 in E.P.No.707 of 2001 in O.S.No.875 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thrissur. The 1st respondent is the decree-holder and 2nd respondent is the third judgment-debtor. The order under challenge is passed by the Execution Court holding that the Execution Petition to execute the compromise decree is perfectly maintainable and posting the case for settlement of proclamation. According to the revision petitioners, if the revision is to be allowed, the Execution Petitioners, if the revision is to be allowed, the Execution Petition can be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, this revision is also maintainable.

2. Though the order under challenge does not disclose the necessary details for a proper understanding of the case, the facts narrated in the revision memorandum as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent disclose certain undisputed facts. Since the argument of the learned senior Advocate Shri. R.D. Shenoy is restricted to a pure question of law, this revision can be disposed of on the basis of the admitted facts and the legal contentions raised.

3. The 1st respondent in