IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31888 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN E.A 160/09&E.P 50/09 IN OS.291/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOHN SAMUEL, WARPURAYIL VEEDU, PUTHIYACAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELIYAMMA PHILIPOSE, MURIMALAYIL THEKKETHIL, PUTHIYACAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN PHILIPOSE, MURIMALAYIL THEKKETHIL, PUTHIYACAVU MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31888 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call the records resulting in Ext.P6 order, scrutinise and quash the same. ii) Direct the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara to rehear E.A No.160/2009 in E.P No.50/2009 in O.S No.291/2006 after considering Ext.P5 objection filed by the petitioner. iii) Pass such other orders, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. iv) Allow this writ petition with costs. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P No. 50 of 2009 in O.S No.291 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. Decree W.P.(C).No.31888 OF 2009 Page numbers executed in the above petition is passed on a compromise between the parties. However, the execution of the decree was objected to by the petitioner/judgment debtor in which among other contentions executability of the decree was also disputed. The execution court without considering the objections passed Ext.P6 order for appointing a surveyor to proceed further with the execution of the decree is the grievance canvassed 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 respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Registry was called upon to ascertain from the learned Munsiff whether Ext.P6 order had been passed after considering the objections raised by the judgment W.P.(C).No.31888 OF 2009 Page numbers debtor challenging the executability of the decree. It is reported that the objections were not specifically considered while passing Ext.P6 order. Setting aside Ext.P6 order, I direct the court below to consider the objections raised by the judgment debtor and then pass appropriate orders on the execution petition. Court below is also directed to take note whether appointment of an advocate commissioner over and above the appointment of a surveyor is required for supervising the execution of the decree, if it is found executable. Appointment of a surveyor without appointing an advocate commissioner is unlikely to serve any purpose. Subject to the above observations, writ petition is disposed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel on usual terms. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE