IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 495 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 67/2004. IN OS.44/1988 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTORS/IST DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. O.K.TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 'OKAY HOUSE', BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2, REP. BY ITS PARTNER VASUDEVAN.O.K. 2. VASUDEVAN.O.K, PARTNER, O.K.TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 'OKAY HOUSE', BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2. 3. BALARISHNAN, PARTNER, O.K.TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 'OKAY HOUSE', BAZAR ROAD, COCHIN-2. 4. INDIA SUBRAMANIYAN, W/O.LATE O.K.SUBRAMANIAN, 13/1120, RAMESWARAM, KARUVELIPPADY, KOCHI-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/DEBTOR/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDJI HIRJI SHAH, PROP. DHIREN TRADING COMPANY, CHUNGAM, ALAPPUZHA. 2. NANDIRAM OIL MILLS, E-9, POLBA WADI, FAZALBHOY COMPOUND, PATEL, BOMBAY-400 012. ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) FOR R1 SRI.MANOJ KUMAR.M FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- C.R.P No.495 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2010 ORDER Revision petitioners are some of the judgment debtors in E.P No.67 of 2004 in O.S No.44 of 1988 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kochi. Challenges raised by them against the execution of the decree which was passed in a suit for money was negatived by the learned Sub Judge under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that there were two suits filed by the same plaintiffs and both of them were for recovery of money from the common defendant. One suit after trial was dismissed and the other suit, allowed. Present E.P arose from the suit dismissed by the trial court, but, later, decreed in appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. The defendants had also filed an appeal against the suit that was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. While both the appeals were pending before this court, it is submitted by the counsel, criminal proceedings were initiated against the plaintiffs before a court in Bombay and such proceedings were settled by effecting payment. In the light of the settlement arrived, the defendants, it is submitted, did not pursue their appeal, and, according to the counsel, they were under the bonafide belief the plaintiffs also would not C.R.P No.495 OF 2006 Page numbers prosecute the other appeal preferred against the suit which had been dismissed. A decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs in appeal came to the notice of the defendants only when they got notice in the execution proceedings is the submission of the counsel. It was in that context the judgment debtors objected to the execution of the decree, but, without adverting to any of the objections, according to the counsel, the court below had negatived them and passed the impugned order holding that the execution petition is executable. Whatever be the merit of the submissions made by the counsel, I find the execution court is duty bound to execute the decree in accordance with law. A decree admittedly was passed by the superior forum, this court, in favour of the plaintiffs. If that decree is impeachable on any ground available to the judgment debtors than they ought to have to taken recourse to do as provided by law. When a decree passed by this court is sought to be inexecuted, the objections raised that there was a settlement during the pendency of the appeal and without taking note of it the decree had been passed in favour of the decree holder cannot be accepted by the execution court. That alone was done by the execution court in the present case. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE