IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37026 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.29/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VISWANATHAN, S/O. A.M.MENON AGED 51 YEARS, PREMAVILA KAILAS NAGAR, KALPATHY AMSOM, DESOM PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR ANIKKATH HOUSE, ROBINSON ROAD, KOPPAM AMSOM PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37026 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor in E.P No. 303 of 2009 in O.S No.29 of 2008 on the file of Munsiff Court, Palakkad. Decree executed is one passed in a suit for money. After passing of the decree by payment outside court, the decree debt had been discharged and the decree holder had executed a receipt as well is the case of the judgment debtor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence was taken on the application moved by him for certification of the payment producing the receipt purported to have been issued by the decree holder. Petitioner had also moved an application for sending the receipt to a forensic expert since the decree holder had denied its execution. Court below has allowed that application vide Ext.P4 order directing the judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) to meet the expense of the expert and W.P.(C).No.37026 OF 2009 Page numbers another sum of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred only) without specifying its requirement. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. 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 hence it is dispensed with. I find that, if at all the petitioner has any grievance as to the direction issued to by the court below with respect to the deposit demanded for a sum of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred only) without specifying as to its requirement, it is open to him to file a petition before the court below for reviewing that order. Reserving the right of petitioner to do so, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE