IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23738 of 2008(A) -------------------------- OS.146/2001 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.K.KRISHNANKUTTY S/O.THE LATE SHRI.M.K.KANNUR MUNDAKKAD HOUSE (SASTHA INDUSTRIES, KINAVALLUR) PALAKKAD 2. M.PADMINI, W/O. SHRI M.K.KRISHNANKUTTY MUNDAKKAD HOUSE PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.A.ABRAHAM S/O. SHRI.C.M.ABRAHAM, CHEMMARIKKAD HOUSE SHORNUR, (PARNER, SHORNUR GENERAL FINANCE, SHORNUR) 2. THE PRESENT MANAGING PARTNER MARY ALIUAS GEETHA ABRAHA W/O. SHRI.C.A. ABRAHAM, (JUNIOR) MAYURAM, SHORNUR BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23738 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext.P5 order of attachment served on the petitioner under Rule 54 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure and a further direction to restrain respondents from executing the decree in O.S.No.146 of 2001. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.146 of 2001, on the file of Sub Court, Ottappalam. The suit was decreed on 9.4.2002. The case of the petitioners is that first petitioner was laid up and therefore an ex parte decree was passed. Even if it is an ex parte decree, petitioners are not entitled to get a direction from this Court restraining the decree holders from executing the decree, as sought for. If petitioners are aggrieved by the ex parte decree, their remedy is to file a petition under Rule 13 of Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure or to challenge the decree in a regular appeal. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.23738 of 2008 2 when respondents are entitled to execute the decree, they are entitled to attach the immovable property. If the property cannot be attached, remedy of the petitioners is to appear before the executing court and resist the execution petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.