IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14621 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.160/08,EA.48/09 IN OS.18/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. V.C.ASHRAFF, S/O. KHADER, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, V.C.HOUSE, MAKRERI AMSOM, KOTTAM DESOM, KANNUR, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.MOIDU, S/O. KHADER, AGED 48 YEARS, V.C.HOUSE, KOTTAM, P.O. MUNDALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. B.SAJITHA, W/O. ASHRAFF, AGED 38 YEARS, DOCTOR, V.C.HOUSE, MAKRERI AMSOM, KOTTAM DESOM, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.MOIDU, S/O. KHADER, AGED 48 YEARS, V.C.HOUSE, KOTTAM, P.O.MUNDALLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. MANGOOL CHAKKARA VINAYAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MANGOOL HOUSE,PANANKAVU, P.O. CHIRIKKAL, KANNUR 11, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14621 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the decree holders in O.S.No.18/2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. Suit was one for money instituted by the petitioners through their power of attorney. Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. First respondent/judgment debtor in satisfaction of the decree deposited the decree amount before the court. Cheque application was moved by the petitioners through their power of attorney. It was disallowed by the court. Challenging the correctness of that this writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. A report was called from the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thalassery to find out why the cheque application was disallowed. It was reported that the power of attorney was not produced with the cheque application and there was nothing on record to prove that the person who moved the application was W.P.(C).No.146214 of 2009 - O 2 duly authorized to collect the decree amount deposited in court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move afresh a cheque application through the power of attorney holder on production of that power of attorney, the petition may be disposed of. Reserving the right of the petitioners to move a fresh cheque application on production of a power of attorney as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is closed. If any cheque application is moved by the petitioners producing the power of attorney, the learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-