IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.NO. 349 OF 2010() ----------------------------------- (AGAINST E.P. NO.56 OF 2007 IN O.S. NO.2459 OF 1980, ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR) REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREEE HOLDERS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. (PREVIOUSLY MYSORE POWER CORPORTION LTD.)(A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE),REGD.OFFICE(PREVIOUSLY BHARATIYA VIDHYA BHAVAN)SATHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD,BANGALORE-560 001,REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEAD. 2. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.(PREVIOUSLY MYSORE POWER CORP;LTD) CHAKRANAGAR,SHIMOGA DIST.REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEAD,KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.NELSON JOSEPH SRI.M.D.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NECHUPADAM CONSTRUCTIONS,ENGG. CONSTRUCTIONS KADAYIRUPPU POST,ERNAKULAM DIST. KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 2. C.P.ISSAC,MANAGING PARTNER,NECHUPADAM, CONSTRUCTIONS,KADAYIRUPPU POST,VIA KOLANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST.KERALA. 3. K.E.THOMAS,PARTNER,NECHUPADAM, CONSTRUCTIONS,KADAYIRUPPU POST,VIA KOLANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST.KERALA. 4. K.P.PAULOSE,(PARTNER),S/O.PAILY, AGED 56 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU,KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU,AIKARANAD,KERALA. 5. K.P.PAILY(PARTNER),S/O.PAILY,AGED 77 YRS RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU,KALAGAMARI,KADAYIRIPPU, AIKARANAD,KERALA. 6. K.P.IYPPE(PARTNER),AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU,KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU,AIKARANAD,KERALA. 7. SMT.C.I.DARLEY(PARTNER),D/O.C.P.ISSAC, AGED 27 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU,KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU,AIKARANAD,KERALA. 8. K.P.MARY(PARTNER)MR.PAILY,AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU,KALAGAMARI,KADAYIRIPPU, AIKARANAD,KERALA. 9. K.P. PAUL (PARTNER), S/O. POULOSE, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU, KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIUPPU, AIKARANAD, KERALA. 10. SMT. LILLY ISSAC (PARTNER)(, D/O.MR. C.P. ISSAC, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU, AIKARANAD, KERALA. 11. SMT. ALAY ITIAN (PARTNER), W/O.LATE SHRI ITIAN, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU, AIKARANAD, KERALA. 12. SMT. ANNIE PAUL (PARTNER), D/O. K.P.POULOSE, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHENNEKKATTU KALAGAMARI, KADAYIRIPPU, AIKARANAD, KERALA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.349 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Since the execution petition was disposed of by the learned Sub Judge, North Paravur without issuing notice to the respondents-judgment debtors I am disposing of this revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents herein. 2. Petitioner obtained a decree for recovery of money against respondents in O.S. No.2459 of 1980 of the court of learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore and on the request of petitioner decree certificate was transferred to the Additional District Court, North Paravur which in turn sent the decree certificate to the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravur. Pursuant to that C.R.P. No.349 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner filed E.P. No.56 of 2007. Learned Sub Judge did not issue notice on the execution petition to the respondents but noting that copy of the decree is not produced dismissed the execution petition. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that it was not necessary for the petitioner to have produced a copy of the decree in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel would also placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in Buchi Bajalingam v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1954 Mysore 1 (F.B). According to the learned counsel it was for the executing court to have called for copy of the decree from the City Civil Court, Bangalore. It is C.R.P. No.349 of 2010 -: 3 :- pointed out by learned counsel that on enquiry it was revealed that records of the case (in the City Civil Court, Bangalore) were destroyed on 19.3.2005. It is seen that it is without giving notice on the execution petition to the respondents that executing court dismissed the execution petition. Executing court has to consider whether it was necessary for petitioner to have produced a copy of the decree in view of Order XXI Rule 6 of the Code. Necessarily such a decision can be arrived at only after issuing notice to the respondents and hearing them. In view of that I am persuaded to think that the order under challenge cannot be sustained. Executing court shall issue notice on the execution petition to the respondents and after hearing them C.R.P. No.349 of 2010 -: 4 :- decide whether in the circumstances non-production of copy of decree by petitioner was fatal. Resultantly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside and E.P. No.56 of 2007 is remitted to the executing court for fresh decision after issuing notice to respondents and hearing parties. Parties shall appear in the executing court through counsel on 30.07.2010. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv