IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1037 of 2010(O) ------------------------- PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- KUNNATH MOIDU,S/O. KOYAKKUTTY, AKALAD DESOM, PUNNAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- ACHUTHAN,S/O.KADAYAMMAR AYYAPPAN, AKALAD DESOM, PUNNAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1037 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.1 of 2006 in O.S.No.300 of 1982 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P4, order whereby executing court found that the compromise decree is executable. Parties had filed separate suits as O.S.Nos.300 of 1982 and 360 of 1983 and when the matter was pending in this court in appeal, they reached a settlement following which a compromise decree (Ext.P1) was passed to which the compromise was apprehended. Respondent filed E.P.No.1 of 2006 for execution of the compromise decree. Petitioner raised various objections including executability of the decree. Petitioner approached this court with W.P.C.No.16494 of 2009 and vide Ext.P3, judgment this court directed executing court to consider executability of the decree and if the court finds in favour of executability, to direct Advocate Commissioner identify the property for execution of the sale deed. Executing court considered objection regarding executability of the decree and passed Ext.P4, order in favour of executability. O.P(C).No.1037 of 2010 : 2 : 2. Now apprehension of petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P4, order executing court may not consider objections other than regarding executability of the decree raised by petitioner in Ext.P2. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is entitled to urge those contentions also and if Advocate Commissioner submitted report, file objections to that. 3. On going through Ext.P4, order what I find is that the executing court only decided the objection raised by petitioner regarding executability of the decree and found in favour of executability. If petitioner has raised other objections in Ext.P2, it is open to the petitioner to urge those contentions at the appropriate stage as the law provides. This petition is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-