IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14714 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.191/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SULAIMAN KUNJU,THATTARAZHIKATHIL, MADAPPALLY MURI,CHAVARA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV.MR.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- K.MOHANAN,KANNITTA SREE BHAVANAM, CHAVARA MURI,CHAVARA VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.RAJA, MR.R.RANJITH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14714 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The judgment debtor in E.P.No.203/2008 in O.S.No.191/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally is the petitioner. The respondent is the decree holder. The decree was passed in a suit for money against which the petitioner/judgment debtor preferred an appeal as A.S.No.327/2008 before the II Additional District Court, Kollam. In the appeal, an application for staying the decree was moved under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. The appellate court passed a conditional order directing the appellant/judgment debtor to furnish security for the decree amount within the time limit fixed. Meanwhile, the decree holder took steps for executing the decree, since the order passed by the appellate court to furnish the security was not complied within the time fixed. The execution court straight away, it is submitted, issued a warrant. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order passed by the execution court issuing warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor. W.P.(C).No.14714 of 2009 - O 2 Impeaching the correctness and propriety of Ext.P5 order, this writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder fairly submitted that an order under Order XXI Rule 37 was issued without conducting an enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor would submit that he was not given an opportunity to file objection to the notice. That being so, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained under law. When the writ petition was admitted, a conditional order was passed directing the judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to stay the operation of Ext.P5 order. It is submitted that the same was deposited. The decree holder is entitled to get release of the amount. But, it is made clear that the deposit made by the judgment debtor on the orders passed by this Court will not preclude the judgment debtor in taking whatever defences W.P.(C).No.14714 of 2009 - O 3 available in answer to the notice issued under Order XXI Rule 37. The execution court is directed to conduct an enquiry if any objections are filed by the judgment debtor in response to the notice issued and pass appropriate orders. Ext.P5 order is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-