IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 867 OF 2008() --------------------- {IN EP.69/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY OS.1278/1988 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------------------------- M/S. ERNAKULAM FINANCIERS & KURIES P.LTD T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MATHEW KURIEN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KURIAN, RESDING AT KAIZHAKKUDEN HOUSE CHANDRATHIL ROAD, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI 682 024. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOHN SRI.RENJU JOHN SRI.B.JAYAPARAKASH RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: -------------------------------------------- 1. J.MOHAMED KUNJU,AGED 56 YEARS S/O. YOONUS KUNJU, RETD .DYSP, NISHA AUTO SERVICE CENTRE, NEAR WATER TANK, EDAPPALLY COTTA CHAVARA KOLLAM, RESIDING AT ARATTUPUZHA HOUSE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. P.A.KAREEM, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED RESIDING AT EDAMBADATH HOUSE, NJALAKAM DESOM THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. THRESSIAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 50 YEARS W/O. P.A.KAREEM,RESIDING AT EDAMBADATH HOUSE, NJALAKAM DESOM THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. CRP.NO. 867 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 4. V.M.KHADIR, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.MOHAED RESIDING AT VALIYAVEEDU, KAKKANAD DESOM THRIKKAKARA SOUTH VILLAGE, KANNAYANNUR TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA & SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRP NO.868 OF 2008 ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.867 & 868 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R These revisions have been filed by the common decree holder in two suits, both for money, challenging the orders passed by the transferee execution court dismissing the execution petitions holding that the execution of the decrees is barred by limitation and also execution had been sought for only against one among the judgment debtors. The judgment debtor proceeded against both the execution petitions is the same person, who is the common respondent in these revisions. Identical order has been passed by the learned Munsiff in both the execution petitions, dismissing them, which are impugned in these revisions. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Perusing the impugned orders passed by the execution court, it appears, the C.R.P.No.867 & 868 of 2008 :: 2 :: transferee court to which the decree can be transferred for execution has not considered to what extent the challenges canvassed by the judgment debtor on the question of limitation for absence of judgment debtors could be entertained by that court in execution of the decree. In Ramankutty v. Kali Nani {1986 KLT 54} this court embarking on the power of the transferee court to which a decree had been transferred for execution has observed thus: “The transferee court is not vested with any jurisdiction under S.42 C.P.C. to review the order of the transferor court or reconsider it on any grounds. If the judgment debtor wants to review it he should approach the court which passed the decree. S.42 of the CPC itself makes it clear that the transferee court is empowered to execute the decree sent to it by the transferor court and as Order 21 Rule 26 gives power to the transferee court to stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time to C.R.P.No.867 & 868 of 2008 :: 3 :: enable the judgment debtor to apply to the court which passed the decree for an order of stay the position admits of no doubt that the transferee court is not vested with full powers as if the transferor court has lost its seisin over the matter.” 4. So much so, the challenges canvassed by the judgment debtor imputing the executability of the decree other than on the ground of nullity or one without jurisdiction, necessarily, have to be canvassed only before the transferred court and not entertainable before the transferee court. If any application is moved by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 26 to challenge the decree to canvass his objections before the transferred court, the transferee court shall consider such application on its merits and pass appropriate orders. 5. The impugned orders challenged in the revisions are set aside and the transferee execution court is directed to consider and C.R.P.No.867 & 868 of 2008 :: 4 :: dispose of the execution petitions, subject to the observations made above, in accordance with law. Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//