IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).NO. 714 OF 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.17/2010 IN OS.134/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.JABBAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.A.J.FOOD PRODUCTS, HOUSE NO.6/615, BAZAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHIHAB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTER, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY CASE OFFICER. 2. SUHARA, W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, C.C.NO.13/277, KOCHANGADY, KOCHI - 682 002. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.714 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Judgment debtor No.1 in E.P.No.17 of 2010 in O.S.No.134 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi is the petitioner before me. Respondent No.1 filed the suit for recovery of money against petitioner and respondent No.2. Petitioner and respondent No.2 filed written statement . While so, it is alleged, respondent No.1 made counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 believe that respondent No.1 is ready to waive substantial portion of interest and give installment facility for payment of the amount. Believing that, an endorsement to the effect that the contentions raised by petitioner and respondent No.2 are withdrawn was made on the written statement by counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 and accordingly Ext.P4, judgment was passed in favour of respondent No.1. But disregarding that understanding respondent No.1 has filed execution petition for recovery of the amount. Petitioner and respondent No.2 filed Ext.P5, objection to the execution petition. Executing court passed Ext.P6, order dated 05.11.2010 for settlement of proclamation. Prayer in this petition is to set aside Ext.P4, judgment and Ext.P6, order proclaiming sale of the property. OP(C) No.714/2010 2 2. If as stated by the petitioner endorsement made by the counsel and the consequent decision in the suit was without authority or there was any fraud as alleged, remedy is not in the executing court but to move appropriate application in the trial court. Executing court cannot consider objections raised by the petitioner. Ext.P6, order also does not call for any interference. I find no reason to interfere. Hence without prejudice to other appropriate remedy if any of petitioner this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks