IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25690 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2006 IN E.P.54/2006 IN OS.16/2006 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.CHRISTINA FLORENCE, W/O.REV.D.YESUDAS, AGED 60, RESIDING AT PRIYA BHAVAN, THANGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KALATHUMMAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. J.PREEDA CHRISTABEL, AGED 40, RESIDING AT PRIYA BHAVAN, THANGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KALATHUMMAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. WINISTON YESUDAS, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRIYA BHAVAN, THANGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KALATHUMMAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI, CHENGANATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, ADIMALY, MANNOMKONAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT CHENGANATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KATTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE. 2. C.R.JOSE, MANAGER, HALAL FINANCE, THOONGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE. 3. ELIAMMA JOSE, W/O. C.R.JOSE, HALAL FINANCE, THOONGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE. 4. SAJI JOSE, S/O. C.R.JOSE, HALAL FINANCE, THOONGAMPARA, ETTUIRUTHI MURI, KATTAKADA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 25690 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners before me are legal heirs of decree holder who obtained a decree for money in O.S.No.16 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Nedumangad against one C.R.Jose. Property of the said C.R.Jose was attached on 30.11.2006 before judgment. In execution decree holder wanted to proceed against the said property. Respondent No.1 made a claim under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). His claim is that the said C.R.Jose had sold the said property to one Thaji Joseph as per Ext.P2, assignment deed No.912 of 2002 dated 16-5-2002 and from the said Thaji Joseph he purchased the property as per Ext.P3, assignment deed No.1203 of 2007 dated 18-5-2007. The claim was objected by the decree holder. Both sides adduced evidence. Execution court vide the impugned order allowed the claim. That order is under challenge at the instance of the legal heirs of decree holder. W.P.(C).NO. 25690 OF 2010 2 I heard learned counsel for petitioner on the sustainability of this writ petition since a statutory remedy by way of appeal is provided under Order 21 Rule 58(4) of the Code. According to the learned counsel, mere fact of admission of claim petition or filing objection does not amount to entertaining the claim petition and hence, appeal is not permissible. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Ayshabi v Yakub (1984 KLT 486). The decision referred to by the learned counsel cannot apply to the facts of this case. In the reported case claim was rejected as belated which comes under the proviso to Order 21 Rule 58(1) of the Code and hence is not appealable while the claim in the present case was entertained, decree holder preferred objection, claim was enquired into, both sides adduced evidence and the execution court vide impugned order allowed the claim petition on merit. That amounted to an adjudication as understood in Order 21 Rule 58(4) of the Code which is subject to an appeal as provided therein. When a statutory remedy by way of appeal is available this Court is not required to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. W.P.(C).NO. 25690 OF 2010 3 Resultantly, this writ petition is closed but, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the impugned order as provided under the Code before the appropriate forum. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm