IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15095 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.181/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.L.ABRAHAM, S/O.P.T.LUKA, PULINTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR.P.O, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SRI.BOBBY THOMAS RESPONDENT: --------------- M/S.MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD., MANIPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.SIVADASAN NEELAKANTAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, RESIDING AT DEEPU NIVAS, MAYYANADU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.15095 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner along with two others has suffered an ex parte decree for realisaiton of money at the hands of learned Civil Judge, Uduppi. Respondent No.1/decree holder obtained transfer of the decree to the court of learned Munsiff, Pala for execution and when execution was launched against the petitioner, he raised a contention that the decree is null and void as respondent No.1/decree holder, a company has become non existent. Petitioner wanted respondent No.1 to produce certain documents to prove that contention. Respondent No.1 resisted the application claiming that the power of attorney sought for is already among the records of the case and that it is incorrect to say that respondent No.1/decree holder, the company has become non existent. At any rate, petitioner can obtain a certificate to prove the same form the Registrar of company. The executing court observed among other things that the transferee court cannot go beyond the decree, there is no contention that respondent No.1/decree holder ceased to exist as a company after passing of the decree and hence the objection raised by petitioner is untenable. Accordingly attachment was W.P.C.No.15095 OF 2010 : 2 : ordered as per Ext.P5, order. The petition to direct respondent No.1 to produce documents was also dismissed. Those orders are under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by his counter part of the executing court. 2. As rightly pointed out by the executing court there is no contention that respondent No.1/decree holder ceased to be a company after the decree sought to be executed was passed. If that be so, challenge is to the validity of the decree itself on the ground of non existence of the company (respondent No.1) which ought to have been raised before the court which passed the decree before passing the decree itself or in a proper appeal from that decree. Even when the transferor court transmits the decree for execution, it does not loose control over the decree as held in P.S Rama moorthy Sastry Vs. Selvar Paints and Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd, Bombay -72 (AIR 1984 Madras 172). Executing court is right in its observation and finding that it cannot go beyond the decree. 3. So far as the petition to direct respondent No.1 to produce documents are concerned, the first document sought for is the power of attorney which respondent No.1 stated, has already been produced in the case and is among the records, and so far as W.P.C.No.15095 OF 2010 : 3 : the second document is concerned, petitioner could have obtained documents from the Registrar of Company. I do not find anything illegal or infirm in the order under challenge. The petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-