J U D G M E N T

Parties are referred as petitioner and respondents in O.P(C)

No.1862 of 2011 for convenience.

2. The Original Petition and Revision arise from the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Adoor on E.A. No.13 of 2011 in E.P. No.56 of 2007 in O.S. No.442 of 1990. Second respondent filed the suit for prohibitory injunction. First respondent filed written statement and made a counter claim. The suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed as per which second respondent was directed to restore a pathway and a Kayyala to its original position. Pending appeal, petitioner (in O.P(C) No.1862 of 2011) purchased the counter claim schedule property but the assignment deed recited that first respondent (assignor) will continue the litigation. Appeal ended in a dismissal. That was followed by the first respondent-counter claim decree holder filing E.P. No.56 of 2007. While that execution petition was pending petitioner, the assignee of the counter claim schedule property from the first respondent filed E.A. No.13 of 2011 to implead him as additional decree holder in E.P. No.56 of 2007. Executing court dismissed E.P. No.56 of 2007 (by Ext.P7, order in O.P(C) No.1862 of 2011) as