IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 17529 of 2009(I) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2009 IN EP 241 2006 IN OS.146/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.K.RAVIMOHAN, AGED 52, S/O.PATTATHIL KRISHNA MENON, AZHKAM DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KARUNYA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD, THIRUSSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THRISSUR PO, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, SMT.DEEPA.V., MR.NEELAKANDAN.P.M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17529/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A.NO.59/07 IN E.P.NO.241/06 IN O.S.NO. 146/00 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DTD.8/01/07. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO EXT.P1 DTD. 14/01/08. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SUBORDINATE JUDGE IN E.A.NO.59/07 IN E.P.NO.241/06 IN TSC O.S.NO.146/00 DTD.24/03/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.17529 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 18th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and may be pleased to set aside the same finding that it is illegal and unsustainable.” 2. Petitioner is one among the judgment debtors in E.P.No.241 of 2006 in O.S.No.146 of 2000 originally on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, but, later, transferred to the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for execution. The decree executed was one passed in a suit for money and the respondent is the decree holder. In execution of the decree, the property of the petitioner/6th judgment debtor was attached. Pursuant to an application moved by him agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs, the attachment was lifted. Later, when execution to realise the decree debt continued, steps were initiated to attach his salary. The petitioner/judgment debtor moved an application contending that by the payment made earlier, no further proceedings in execution can be taken against him, but, only against the other judgment debtors. That application was opposed to by the decree holder by filing objections. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both W.P.C.No.17529/09 - 2 - sides, dismissed the application moved by the petitioner vide P3 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is under challenge in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. A decree had been passed allowing the decree holder to realise the decree debt jointly and severally from all the judgment debtors including the petitioner is not under dispute. Merely because an attachment order passed against the property of the judgment debtor had been lifted on his remitting a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs, it does not postulate that he has been relived of from the entire decree debt due under the decree. If at all, the judgment debtor was relieving of by the earlier payment, necessarily, he should have got it recorded by the court. When that has not been done, the irresistible conclusion follows that he is liable for the balance amount due under the decree along with the other judgment debtors. The Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE