IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32107 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.218/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT,KATTAPPANA EP.4/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SOMAN R., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PAKKUKANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNAKARA, PEERMADE VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- ISSAC T.YUSUFF, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. YUSUF, THANNICKAL HOUSE, PANAYAKKUZHIPPU KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32107 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.218 of 1995 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu. Delivery ordered under the decree in a suit for recovery of possession is challenged by the petitioner/judgment debtor. Disputing the identity of the decree schedule property and also executability of the decree he had filed two petitions. Without considering those petitions the court below is proceeding with the steps for delivery of the property, is the grievance canvassed in the writ petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. From the submissions made and also perusing the exhibits produced in the writ petition, I find the execution court has repelled the challenge raised against the executability of the decree by a previous order dated 29.1.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the writ petition he is W.P.(C).No.32107 of 2009 - O 2 challenging the order so passed by the court also on the ground that he had not been given sufficient opportunity at that stage to canvass the objections as to the executability of the decree. If the petitioner had any such grievance and if the law permits, then his remedy is to move the execution court for considering his objections seeking review of the earlier order. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot been invoked for the purpose of challenging an order which had been passed by the execution court nearly nine months ago. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-