IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 26723 of 2008(F) -------------------------- OS.260/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ----------- THAMPI, S/O. PHILIP, MYLAMKADAVIL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. C.M. AVIRACHAN, S/O. MATHAI, CHELAKKAMATTATHIL, KIZHAKOMBU KARA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE. 2. OMANA, W/O.AVIRACHAN IN DO..DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 26723 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P1 and P3 orders passed by Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in E.P.81 of 2008 in O.S.260 of 1998. First respondent is the decree holder. As per the decree, first respondent was granted a decree to realise Rs.81,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation from defendants 1 to 21. E.P.81 of 2008 is filed for realisation of the decree debt. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Munsiff found that petitioner is having sufficient means and directed his arrest for realising the entire decree debt of Rs.1,48,499/- then due. Petitioner thereafter deposited that amount and filed E.A.138 of 2008, contending that under the decree, he is liable only to the extent of 1/21 shares and therefore the decree holder is not entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited by him under protest to avoid arrest and to get his liability limited to 1/21 shares. 2. The argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that when the decree provides for realisation of the amount from 21 defendants, each of the defendant is liable to the extent of 1/21 shares and therefore he is liable to deposit only 1/21 shares of the decree debt and hence the liability fixed under Ext.P1 and the order of WP(C) 26723/2008 2 dismissal of the application are to be set aside. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the contention. The decree is for realisation of the amount from all defendants and each of them is jointly and severally liable. Therefore the decree holder is entitled to realise the amount either from one or more of the judgment debtors or from all of them. Petitioner is not entitled to contend that the decree holder is not entitled to realise the entire amount from him or is entitled to realise only 1/21 shares from him. Petitioner could at best contend that if he is compelled to pay the entire amount, he is to get reimbursement of that amount due from other judgment debtors. Finding of learned Munsiff that the decree holder is entitled to realise the entire amount from petitioner and therefore he is not entitled to get the declaration that he is liable only to the extent of 1/21 share, is perfectly correct. I find no illegality or impropriety in the orders. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to realise the portion of the liability from other judgment debtors, if he is entitled to. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-