IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23468 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 45/08 IN OS.250/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.V.SREEDHARA PANICKER ,KALLUZHATHIL, ALA VADAKKUM MURI, ALA VILLAGE,CHENGANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.P.VINODKUMAR, MR.T.K.AJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- K.V.SULOCHANA,VALIYAKALAYIL, PERINGALA MURI, MULAKKUZHA, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23468 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To set aside the order passed in E.A.No.39/2005 in E.P.No.45/2008 in O.S.No.250/1998 by the Munsiff Court, Chengannur and allow the E.A.No.39/2008.” 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.45 of 2008 in O.S.No.250 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. He filed an application to stay the execution of the decree contending that pursuant to decree proceeded with in execution, he had filed a suit challenging the document under which the decree holder barred the suit claim which was ultimately decreed in his favour. The suit, subsequently filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed and against that decision, he has preferred an appeal with a petition to condone delay was the ground canvassed to stay the execution of the decree. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application vide P2 order. Propriety and correctness of P2 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.23468 of 2009 - O 2 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. 5. The execution of a decree validly obtained by the respondent/decree holder is sought to be stayed by the judgment debtor contending that he had filed another suit. Whatever that be, the execution court is bound to execute the decree. Whatever be the right of the parties adjudicated upon which had culminated in the decree has to be given effect to, it is not open to the judgment debtor to reopen the issues in separate proceedings and any such attempt to stall the execution of the decree deserve to be repelled. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-