IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30180 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- EP 388/2005 IN ARC.16/1992 of I ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. GNANADAS, S/O. NELSON NADAR, PODUVAL VEEDU, VADAKKUMKARA, THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE. 2. E. ROBINSON, S/O. ELIYAZER, JOY BHAVAN, THIRUPURAM DESOM -DO- VILLAGE. 3. A. LAZER, S/O. YESUDAS, MELE KANJIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM -DO- VILLAGE. 4. THANKAPPAN, S/O. CHELLAYYAN NADAR, DEEPTHI BHAVAN, PLAVUNINNA VILAYIL, THIRUPURAM DESOM -DO- VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH, MR.P.R.RAJA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, MANAGING PARTNER, MURUKA CHIT FUND, KALIYIKKAVILA, FROM JAYASREE SADANAM, MADATHUVILAKOM, PANNIYOOR DESOM, VILAVAMCODU VILLAGE. 2. A. LALITHA, D/O. APPAVU NADAR, KANJIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, THIRUPURM DESOM, -DO- VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. MR.R.GOPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30180/2008-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.388/2005 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 28/09/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO EXT.P1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 11/08/2008 IN EP.388/05 IN ARC.16/92 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30180 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The judgment debtors in E.P No.388 of 2005 in ARC No. 16 of 1992 on the file of 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara have filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining their objections impeaching the maintainability of the execution petition. After execution petition was transmitted to the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara from Principal Disctrict Munsiff Court, Kuzhithurai and transmission of the award for execution, the decree holder filed the present execution petition before the transferee court. Execution was challenged by the petitioners mainly on two grounds that the award sought to be executed is barred by limitation and the previous execution petition had been abandoned by the decree holders making a statement before the court that it was not pressed. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides found no merit in the objections raised by the petitioners/judgment debtors and the impugned Ext.P3 order W.P.(C).No.30180 OF 2008 Page numbers was passed negativing such objections. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. So far as the question of limitation canvassed by the petitioners/judgment debtors, Ext.P3 order disclose that the execution court has taken note of the stay in force during the pendency of the previous execution petition and has formed a conclusion that the present execution petition is within time. Nothing has been brought to my notice to hold that the view so taken by the learned Munsiff is erroneous. With respect to the other ground canvassed that the previous execution petition had been abandoned by the decree holder submitting that it was not pressed, learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that the order passed by the execution court, on such submission, closing the execution proceeding at the most can be treated only as an order for statutory purpose and not a judicial order. While the previous execution petition was pending, a number of years, the execution proceedings could not be proceeded on W.P.(C).No.30180 OF 2008 Page numbers account of the stay in force and taking note of that the court to hold that the present execution petition is not barred by limitation. I find no significance can be given to the ground canvassed that previously the decree holder had given up the earlier execution petition as not pressed in the light of the decision rendered by the apex court in “Pentapati China Venkanna and others v Pentapati Bangararaju and others (AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1454). The learned counsel for the decree holder is well founded in contending that the closing of the previous execution petition has to be treated as one for statutory purpose alone. View taken by the learned Munsiff to hold the present execution petition is no way affected by the closing of the previous execution petition on the nonpressing of that petition by the decree holder, in the given facts of the case, does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv