IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30726 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.468/2001 IN OS.300/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.JACOBKUTTY, AGED 55, S/O.LATE MATHEW KORAH, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, DEVAGIRI BRANCH, KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.K.SHAJIMON, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AREEPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SOSAMMA KORAH, PUTHUPARAMBIL, AREEPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. P.K.MATHEW, PUTHUPARAMBIL, AREEPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. ABRAHAM P.KORAH, PUTHUPARAMBIL, AREEPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. MARIAMMA, AMBATTU HOUSE, PANGADA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. ABRAHAM, AMBATTU HOUSE, PANGADA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. JOHN, AMBATTU HOUSE, PANGADA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WPC 30726/09 9. KURIAN, AMBATTU HOUSE, PANGADA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. VARGHESE, AMBATTU HOUSE, PANGADA KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 30726 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and P5 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction. 2. To declare that the 1st respondent/decree holder has no right to proceed with the Execution Petition in respect of Exhibit P1 decree after its closure vide Exhibit P2. 3. To declare that the 1st respondent/decree holder has no right to proceed with fresh Execution Petitions and restoration application at a time in respect of Exhibit P1 decree. 4. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam to stop all further proceedings for the realisation of any amount in respect of Ext.P1 decree. 2. Petitioner is one among the judgment debtors in the execution proceedings emanating from the decree passed in W.P.C.No.30726/09 - 2 - O.S.No.300 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. Two orders passed by the execution court, P4 and P5, are challenged in the writ petition. First respondent decree holder is a nationalised bank. Towards the satisfaction of the decree, sale was conducted over a property of the judgment debtor and it was confirmed on 22.8.2006 in E.P.No.468 of 2001. After confirmation of the sale, the execution court passed P2 order closing the execution petition. Thereupon, the decree holder bank moved two applications; one for reopening of the execution petition as the decree has not been satisfied by the sale already conducted and confirmed and another application for delivering the property, the sale of which was already confirmed. P4 order was passed by the court reviewing the previous order under P2 closing the execution petition and restoring of that petition for further steps. The application for delivery of the property, which was already sold, which happened to be numbered as another execution petition, E.P.No.194 of 2007, was allowed by P5 order. The order for delivery and also restoring of the execution petition previously ordered to be closed are challenged by the petitioner/one among the judgment debtors contending it was barred by limitation. 3. I do not find any merit in the challenges canvassed to impeach the orders of the court below. The decree has not been fully W.P.C.No.30726/09 - 3 - satisfied by the sale already conducted and the order earlier passed was only closing of the execution petition and not of recording satisfaction of the decree is not a disputed fact. It is also ascertained from the Registry that the application for delivery of the property sold and confirmed was made within the period of one year from the date of confirmation of the sale. When that be the case, the order for delivery passed under P5 is not open to challenge by any of the judgment debtors. So far as the revival of the execution petition reviewing the previous order closing the execution petition as ordered under P4, in the given facts of the case, is also not open to challenge when the decree has not been fully satisfied by the judgment debtors. Mere fact that the applications moved by the decree holder after closing of the previous execution petition had been numbered as execution petitions rather than execution applications would not in any way enure to the benefit of any of the judgment debtor in blocking the execution of the decree. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE