IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34679 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.19/2006 IN OS.145/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K. PARAMESWARA PILLAI, SOUPARNIKA, THDELLIYOOR, KOLAMBHAGOM.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. GIREESH KUMAR.P.V, SARASAMMA SADAN, THELLIYOOR, KOLABHAGOM.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.N. KRISHNANKUTTY, MUTHIRAPARAMBIL VEEDU, THELLIYOOR, AYIROOR.P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34679 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P3 order passed in E.P.No.19/2006 in O.S.No.145/2004 by the Munsiff's Court, Ranni and permit the petitioner to deposit the amount due in E.P.No.19/2006 in instalments. 2. Petitioners are the 2nd and 4th judgment debtors in E.P.No.19 of 2006 in O.S.No.145 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ranni. Decree being executed was one passed in a suit for eviction and damages. Pursuant to steps taken in execution, the judgment debtors were vacated from the decree schedule building and now steps are being proceeded for WPC.34679/09 2 realisation of the claim of damages till they were evicted from the building under the decree. Meanwhile, petitioners/judgment debtors had moved an application that when eviction was proceeded by the decree holder, his valuable properties were seized and taken into custody and thereby he suffered damages. He had put forth a claim for damages to be realised from the decree holder and pending enquiry on that application, when the decree holder proceeded for realisation of the damages awarded under the decree from the judgment debtor, he approached this Court and filed a writ petition to stay the execution proceedings. Ext.P1 is the judgment rendered in the writ petition, by which, the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire amount due as damages to the decree holder in a fixed deposit in a bank and produce the fixed deposit receipt before the court. A direction was given to the court below to endorse the lien of the court on the fixed deposit receipt, if so produced by the judgment debtor in compliance of the order passed in Ext.P1 judgment. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce a fixed deposit receipt for the amount due to the decree holder under WPC.34679/09 3 the decree as directed in Ext.P1 judgment. Execution court thereupon proceeded with the execution of the remaining part of the decree for realisation of the damages due from the judgment debtor. Negativing the objections canvassed by the petitioners/judgment debtors that an enquiry on his petition seeking damages has to be adjudged and decided upon before the remaining part of the decree in favour of the decree holder, the court below passed Ext.P3 order directing for issuing warrant against him. 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. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P1 judgment challenged in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought indulgence of this Court to stay the operation of the order passed by the court WPC.34679/09 4 directing the issue of warrant against him submitting that he may be allowed to discharge the decree debt outstanding in instalments. On the facts presented in the case, I find no such indulgence can be extended to the petitioners/judgment debtor. Previously he has approached this Court seeking the indulgence and vide Ext.P1 judgment, a conditional order had been passed directing him to discharge the decree debt outstanding by way of a fixed deposit receipt and produce such receipts before the court. If the amount is deposited, a further direction was made that executability of the remaining part of the decree in favour of the decree holder has to be proceeded with after his claim of damages is adjudged upon. Without complying with the conditional order imposed thereunder as directed under Ext.P1 judgment, petitioner again seeks the indulgence of this Court. His case that he has no means to pay the decree debt, but, it was not considered by the court, is another grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor. Plea so canvassed by the judgment debtor deserves to be taken note of only for its rejection in view of the Ext.P1 judgment rendered earlier. WPC.34679/09 5 There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp