IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31836 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 273/06 IN OS.126/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE SR. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SOMASUNDARAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, KIZHAKKETHALAKKIL VEEDU, ALAPPARAMBU, KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAP9PALAM, PALAKKAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31836 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the garnishee who had been issued a notice under Order 21 Rule 46(A) to deposit the amount which is stated to be in his custody as belonging to the judgment debtor in E.P No. 273 of 2006 in O.S No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Palakkad. In response to the notice, petitioner raised objections that the amount due to the judgment debtor, an employee of the Southern Railway, had not been finalised so far in view of the nonfurnishing of the settlement papers by the judgment debtor on his retirement from service. The execution court without considering the objections nor even adverting to the objections passed Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner/garnishee to deposit the attached amount W.P.(C).No.31836 OF 2009 Page numbers within the time limit fixed, is the grievance espoused in the writ petition to challenge the order of the court below invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. Petitioner/garnishee, as seen from Ext.P2 objections canvassed to the notice issued by the court has raised objections as to why it should not be compelled to tender the deposit of the attached amount ordered by the court. The court below, it is seen for the reason the attached amount has not been deposited straightaway passed an order under Ext.P1 without considering the merit of the objections canvassed. When a notice is issued to a garnishee under Order 21 Rule 46(A) and if objections are raised by the garnishee showing W.P.(C).No.31836 OF 2009 Page numbers cause why it should not make the deposit a duty is cast upon the court to consider the merit of the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. An order passed by the court, if necessary, after framing issues on the basis of the objections canvassed and adjudicating them has the effect of a decree, which is appealable under Order 21 Rule 46(A) of the Code. Such being the position of law, I find the impugned order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. Setting aside the impugned order the learned Munsiff is directed to reexamine the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv W.P.(C).No.31836 OF 2009 Page numbers