IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9734 of 2007(H) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.17/2006 IN OS.412/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.KRISHNA KUMAR, MUDIYIL BUNGLOW, PELA, KANNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARIATHETHU CHITTY FUND, REPRESENTED BY ITS P.V.GEORGE, RESIDING AT PARIATHETHU HOUSE, PADINJATTOM CHERRY MURI, KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA. 2. R.REGHUNATHAN, MADISSERIL, VALLAMKULAM, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA. 3. SANDEEP CHANDRAN, CHANDRA LOK, MAVELIKKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.9734/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION AND THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT IN E.A.NO.261/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO THE E.A.NO.261/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.261/2006 IN E.P.NO.17/2006 IN O.S.NO.412/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 30.1.2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9734 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st judgment debtor in E.P.No.17 of 2006 in O.S.No.412 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. The decree being executed is one passed in a suit for money. According to the petitioner, the decree was passed in favour of a firm which was an unregistered one and he has challenged the decree in an appeal. Pending that appeal and also the execution proceedings, the person who represented the firm passed away. Her husband has been substituted on his application that he is the managing partner of the firm. A previous application moved by him in the execution had been dismissed by the execution court, and that the firm being an unregistered one, the impleadment should not have been allowed is the case of the judgment debtor. Even in the writ petition, I find that the firm had been styled as represented by the person who had been additionally WPC.9734/07 2 impleaded in the execution petition. The question whether it is a registered firm or not can be raised and canvassed by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him against the decree. Considering the submissions made and after perusing the impugned order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order of the court below warranting interference invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp