IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26879 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- OS.47/2005 of IST ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. V.U.JACOB @ JOHNEY JACOB VILANGADAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, VILANGADAN HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19. 2. JOSEPH J.VILANGADAN, S/O.JACOB, AGED 42 YEARS, VILANGADAN HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19. BY ADVS.MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI MR.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL MR.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SMT.K.U.BINI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, A BANKING COMPANY, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THRISSUR AND BRANCHES AT BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM AND AT OTHER PLACES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26879 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief. Set aside Ext.P11 and P12 orders passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam, and also pass appropriate orders directing the court below not to proceed with Ext.P13 application and allow this Writ Petition with cost. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S No.47 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for recovery of money by sale of a mortgage property, and respondent is the plaintiff. After trial, the suit was decreed. The plaintiff bank, nearly four years after the passing of the decree moved two applications, one for W.P.(C).No.26879 OF 2009 Page numbers correcting the schedule description in the plaint and the other, the description of the property in the decree. Ext.P6 and P7 are those applications. The defendants who were given notice on the applications filed objections. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides allowed Ext.P6 and P7 applications vide Ext.P10 and P11 orders. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff bank filed Ext.P13 application stating that while seeking amendment earlier, there was an inadvertent omission in seeking deletion of some misdescriptions in the schedule as stated earlier. Ext.P13 is the copy of that application, to which the petitioners have filed Ext.P14 objections. Admittedly, Ext.P13 application is still pending for consideration by the learned Sub Judge. In the writ petition, challenge is against Ext.P11 and P12 orders allowing Ext.P6 and P7 applications moved by the plaintiff bank, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.26879 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to Ext.P8 and P9 objections filed by the petitioners submitted that the court below while allowing the applications have not adverted to the objections and no reasoned order had been passed as contemplated by law while allowing the amendment applications moved by the plaintiff bank. The court has not applied its mind on the question involved, and so much so, Ext.P11 and P12 orders according to the learned counsel are liable to be set aside. I do find some force in the submission made by the counsel. But it is not disputed that the corrections now sought for in the plaint and decree are in tune with the description of the mortgage holding as covered by the deed furnished W.P.(C).No.26879 OF 2009 Page numbers as security to the bank for availing the loan. Once a decree is passed by a court, it is the duty of the court to see that it is given effect to. Otherwise the decrees of a court would be rendered meaningless. Of course, if a challenge against the decree relates to the competency of the court to pass such decree or its executability is barred by any law for the time being in force necessarily the court has to consider such challenges before executing the decree. In other cases where any defect in the decree is noticed, it is the duty of the court to see whether it is rectifiable or not. Such being the position of law and what was sought by the decree holder bank was only correction of some mistakes in the description in the plaint and decree in tune with the mortgage covered by the deed in respect of which a decree had already been granted by the court I find no impropriety or illegality in the orders passed by the court allowing such applications. True, the court could have passed reasoned order taking note of the W.P.(C).No.26879 OF 2009 Page numbers objections raised by the judgment debtors. But on that ground alone the extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this court cannot be invoked where it is seen that the orders passed by the court are necessary to advance the ends of justice. So far as Ext.P13 application is concerned, I direct the learned Sub Judge to pass appropriate order taking note of Ext.P14 objections raised by the petitioners. Writ petition is closed subject to the above observations. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv