1. Respondents 3 and 4 in EA 99 of 1984 in EP 68 of 1983 in execution of decree in OS 396 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode "are the revision petitioners in the above two civil revision petitions. The revision petitions are against the same order by which an amendment to the EP was allowed for the purpose of incorporating the schedule of properties sought to be delivered in the EP

2. The case has a long chequered history of which we are not very much concerned in these two revision petitions. The revision petitioners contended before the execution court that the present EP (68 of 1983) is not maintainable on account of the dismissal of an earlier EP, the order on which is now pending before the Supreme Court and that the EP is also barred by limitation. These contentions only remain to be considered by the execution court and therefore we are not concerned with these aspects also now.

3. The revision petitioners have also a case that the entire decree schedule property has been delivered over and the decree satisfied and therefore nothing more remains to be executed and hence for that reason also the EP is not maintainable. That is also a contention that has y