IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2500 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.121/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- RAGHAVAN ACHARI, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOZHI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.ZIYAD RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. JAYBIN DANIEL, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHI, ATHIKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 711. 2. JACOB DANIEL, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHI, ATHIKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 711. 3. RAJU DANIEL, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, NARANAMMOOZHI, ATHIKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 711. 4. A.S.SIMON, ADVOCATE, RANNY, PIN - 689 672. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2500/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 24/07/2009. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 2/02/2010. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.28/02/2009 IN O.S.NO.121/2004. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/11/2010 INI E.P.NO.32/2009 IN O.S.NO.121/2004. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA ON 18/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2500 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 2004 and judgment debtor in E.P.No.32 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Ranny. Petitioner claims to have availed a loan from one Daniel and executed a sale deed in respect of 5 cents as security on the understanding that on repayment of the loan the said property will be re-conveyed to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the loan was repaid but before reconveyance of the property, Daniel expired. Petitioner filed O.S.No.121 of 2004 against the legal representatives of Daniel for a declaration that the sale deed is a sham document and for injunction. Defendants in the suit made a counter claim. The suit was dismissed and counter claim was decreed but, later it was reopened. Again, the case came up for trial in the list. It is submitted that counsel for petitioner mischievously represented that the matter was settled between the parties and hence the suit is not pressed and the counter claim may be decreed. Accordingly learned Munsiff passed Ext.P3, judgment dated 28.01.2009. Thereafter respondents initiated execution proceeding to execute the decree O.P(C).No.2500 of 2011 -: 2 :- on the counter claim property was delivered to the respondents and by Ext.P4, order execution petition was closed. Now challenge is to Exts.P3 and P4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that counsel appearing for petitioner in the trial court has committed foul play. It is submitted that there was a settlement with the legal representatives of Daniel and accordingly, `.1,05,000/- was paid to them through respondent No.4, the counsel. 2. It is not in this proceeding that petitioner should seek relief against Exts.P3 and P4 on the plea raiesd. If petitioner has a case that there was no such settlement as represented by his counsel (respondent No.4) in the trial court, remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the trial court to set aside Exts.P3 and P4. Supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised for the said purpose. With the above observation and without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner, this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-