IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23163 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2010 IN EP.461/2005 IN OS.911/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/ DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------- P.K.MUHAMMED HASSAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUNNI, CC-II/14-3 YASEEN HOUSE, FORTKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S. SRI.P.Z.NIJAZ RESPONDENTS/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------- 1. BASHEER, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, VALIYAVEETIL, VELIPARAMBIL, CHANDIROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524. 2. ABDUL KALAM, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYAVEETIL, CHANDIROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524. 3. IBRAHIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PARIYATH, JAS MANZIL, CHANDIROOR P.O., AROOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 23163 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner obtained a decree for recovery of money in O.S.No.911 of 1977 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Cherthala and filed E.P.No.461 of 2005 to execute the decree. Necessary steps to bring the property of respondents for sale was also taken. On 26-02-2010 there was an order for proclamation. On the next hearing day, learned counsel for petitioner entrusted the matter to junior lawyer to make necessary representation in court but, that counsel made a representation which was not considered by the executing court and the E.P was dismissed. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that all necessary steps were taken and dismissal of E.P is not justified. 2. The impugned order states that petitioner was represented by another counsel but fresh proclamation schedule was not produced and hence the E.P was dismissed. Assuming that dismissal of the E.P was not proper, petitioner had the opportunity to seek its restoration as provided under Order XXI Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was not done. The decree was passed on 16-10-2000 and hence there is sufficient W.P.C.No.23163 of 2010 : 2 : time for execution of the decree. It is open to the petitioner to file fresh execution petition and proceed against the respondents. In the above circumstances, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the dismissal of E.P.No.461 of 2005. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner to file fresh execution petition as provided under law this writ petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-