IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15066 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.2370/2004 IN OS.618/2002 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.O.GEORGE, S/O.C.K.OUSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, CHIRAYATH CHAMAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PALLATHAMPULLY, TATTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PRADEEP, S/O.MANI, AGED 34 YEARS, MANAPPULLY HOUSE, CHIRAYAKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.15066/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS” EXTP1 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION DATED 17.12.2004 (NO.2370/2004) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.10.2008 IN EP 2370/2004 IN OS 618/2002 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15066 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The holder of decree in O.S.No.618 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur, transmitted to the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur is the writ petitioner. Petitioner filed E.P.No.2370 of 2004 for realisation of Rs.1,08,570/- and a warrant of arrest was issued to the respondent. Amin deputed from the court arrested respondent/judgment debtor and reported that the entire amount stated in the warrant is realised . Thereon learned Additional Munsiff closed the execution petition. According to the petitioner only Rs.15,633/- was realised and rest of the amount was to be realised. Hence this Writ Petition. 2. It is not disputed that the amount due as per execution petition was Rs.1,08,570/- and that the amount realised on the warrant of arrest was only Rs.15,633/-. As such executing court was clearly in error in closing the execution petition stating that the amount mentioned in the warrant has been realised. 3. Learned counsel for respondent contended that petitioner can file a fresh execution petition. According to the learned counsel he did not get opportunity to challenge the order issuing warrant of arrest. But that order was not challenged by respondent at the appropriate time. I do not think it proper WP(C) No.15066/2010 2 or necessary to direct petitioner to file a fresh execution petition for, on the facts and circumstances of the case there was no fault on the part of petitioner and the mistake was committed by the executing court. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P2, order under challenge in this Writ Petition is set aside. Executing court is directed to proceed with execution of the decree as prayed for in E.P.No.2370 of 2004. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks