IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19169 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2009 IN EA.65/09 IN EP.52/2008 IN OS.303/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------- P.K. GOPINATHAN, KOTTUNGAL VEEDU (MANOJ BHAVANAM), ERAMATHOORMURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. MR.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------------------------- VIJAYYAMMA, REVATHI HOUSE, ERAMATHOORMURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA, VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. MR.S.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19169/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/08/08 IN EP NO.52/08. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/11/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 25556/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 12/01/09 IN APPLN. NO.178393/08/AL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EA NO.65/09. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EA NO.65/09. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE BY ORDER DATED 11/06/2009 IN EA NO.65/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19169 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and to set aside the same, allowing Ext.P4 E.A. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. The decree executed was one for money and a sum of Rs.40,778/- was claimed in the execution petition. Petitioner resisted the execution contending that he has no means. Court below, after enquiry, passed Ext.P1 order overruling the plea so WPC.19169/09 2 canvassed to avoid the payment of the decree debt. That order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of a writ petition, and, pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, petitioner deposited Rs.20,000/- towards the decree debt as a condition precedent for staying the operation of the order directing issue of warrant against him. The writ petition was later disposed granting the petitioner three months time to satisfy the decree. Ext.P2 is the copy of that judgment. Meanwhile, the petitioner had moved an application before the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission claiming that he is an agriculturist, and, thus entitled to benefits under the Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006. The Commission had passed Ext.P3 order directing the Government to take over his liability to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and the respondent to waive the balance amount is the case of the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Commission. On the basis of Ext.P3 order of the Commission, petitioner moved an application before the execution court for refund of the amount of Rs.20,000/- already deposited pursuant to orders passed in the writ petition. That application was objected to by the decree WPC.19169/09 3 holder filing Ext.P5 objections. The execution court, after hearing both sides, dismissed Ext.P4 application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Inviting my attention to the definition of 'debt' as under Section 2(vii) of the Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order passed by the execution court contending that Ext.P3 order passed by the Commission constituted under the above Act has a overriding effect against the decree sought to be executed, and as such, the request made under Ext.P4 application for refund of the amount deposited has to be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submitted that suppressing the filing of the writ petition and conditional order passed by the court to stay the operation of issue of warrant against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor had moved the Commission and got Ext.P3 WPC.19169/09 4 order, which, according to the counsel, could in no way unsettle the interim order and also final Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court in the writ petition. The liability outstanding against the petitioner as on the claim raised under the execution petition was Rs.40,778/-. Out of which, Rs.20,000/- was deposited by him pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court in the writ petition moved by him as a condition precedent for staying the operation of the warrant issued against him by the execution court. It is evident from the claim made before the Commission that the petitioner/judgment debtor had sought for the relief under the provisions of the Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act only in respect of the balance amount, which was outstanding on the decree after the deposit of Rs.20,000/-. Even if it is not so, there can be no doubt that the Commission is incapable of setting at naught any order passed by this Court whether it is prelimirary or final . If at all any such order is passed by the Commission, it would amount to an affront to the authority on this Court under the Constitution. The ingenious attempt made by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4 application for getting refund of the amount deposited on the basis of Ext.P3 order WPC.19169/09 5 passed by the Commission deserve to be deprecated. I find no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp