IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 978 of 2011(O) ------------------------ ARB.REF.94/2007 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): --------------------------- MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., NOW RENAMED AS MUTHOOT ASSETS AND FINANCE LTD., 2ND FLOOR, KURIAN TOWERS, BANERJI ROAD, COCHIN HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT COCHIN DENTAL CARE BUILDING, KOMBARA, MARKET ROAD, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT LEGAL OFFICER,SREEDEVI RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.LATE P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, ALIYAR ROAD, MALIPURAM PO, COCHIN - 682 511. BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SAJU JACOB, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR, KOCHI -17. 2. SHERLY JACOBM CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR, KOCHI--17. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.978/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/12/07 IN O.P.(ARB)NO.47/2007 PASSED BY DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P2: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION SCHEDULE IN O.P.ARB.NO.47/2007. P3: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 2/02/2008 IN ARB.REF.NO.94/2007 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR. P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN ARB.REF.NO.94/2007 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AT ERNAKULAM. P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST J.D. IN E.P.135/09 IN ARB.NO.94/2007. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6/07/2010 IN E.P.135/2008 IN ARB.REF.NO. 94/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Civil). No. 978 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P6 order is under challenge. 2. Petitioner obtained an award against the respondents herein, which was put in execution. Ext.P4 is the execution petition filed by the petitioner. Objection to the E.P. filed by the judgment debtors is seen produced as Ext.P5. In the objection, the only contention taken is that as per the scheme by which the judgment debtors availed of the loan, they are only liable to pay a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs and they have done so on 15.7.2008. Their contention is that that amount does not appear to have been credited at all. Therefore, the statement is wrong. 3. On 6.7.2010 the matter came up for consideration. It is seen that the decree holder's counsel was absent and there was no representation on behalf of the O.P.(C). 978/2011. 2 decree holder. It would appear from the order that the judgment debtors represented that Rs.3 Lakhs have been deposited. Based on that, the impugned order was passed by the executing court. 4. One fails to understand as to how the court below, without ascertaining from the decree holder as to whether the amount has been received, can order full satisfaction of the decree. All that is stated in the counter is that Rs.3 Lakhs has been paid, which is not accounted. There is no statement in the counter affidavit, which says that the matter had been settled for Rs. 3 Lakhs and the said amount had been paid. Therefore, the court below was not justified in recording full satisfaction precluding the decree holder from taking further steps in the matter. Ext.P6 order is unsustainable both on facts and in law. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, Ext.P6, is set aside and the court below is O.P.(C). 978/2011. 3 directed to take E.P.135 of 2008 back to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.