IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21646 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- EP-623/2008 IN OS.584/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BAVA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. OLAVAKKOT AMMUNJ, EANAVATHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SATHYASEELAN, ALLETHVEETTIL SAROJINI PADANAISSARAMMA, EARAVATHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. A. UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.ALLETHVEETTIL SAROJINI PADANAISSARAMMA, EARAVATHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. A. CHANDRIKA, S/O. ALLETHVEETTIL SAROJINI PADANAISSARAMMA, EARAVATHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. VASU, S/O. KAVALLUR KANNY, EARAVATHUR DESOM, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21646 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same. ii) Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 2. Petitioner is one among the judgment debtors in E.P No. 623 of 2008 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kodungalloor. The first respondent as the plaintiff instituted O.S 584 of 2003 for partition of the suit property showing that the first and second defendants are other cosharers having right over that property. In the suit 3rd and 4th defendants were also impleaded as codefendants alleging they claim some right over the property under the first and second defendants. A preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/3 share to the plaintiff and later a final decree was also passed in which a commissioner appointed by the court prepared a report and plan specifying the property to be allotted to the plaintiff. When the first respondent / plaintiff moved for execution, the fourth judgment debtor, the present petitioner filed objections challenging the maintainability of the execution petition. The learned Munsiff after hearing both parties negatived the objections so raised under Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 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 it is dispensed with. The mandatory provisions under the Rules and also the Code of Civil Procedure have been given a go by in the filing of the execution petition and it affects its maintainability is the challenge raised by the 4th judgment debtor to resist the decree. Admittedly he does not claim any right over the decree scheduled property. He was a party to the suit in which he filed a written statement resisting the suit claim. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since he suffered from paralysis he could not prosecute his case and that ultimately resulted in passing of a preliminary decree and final decree in favour of the decree holder. Whatever that be it has to be noted that the petitioner / 4th defendant does not claim any independent right, title and possession over the scheduled property allotted under the decree to the first petitioner. His claim is under the first and second defendants ands even if he has any claim once the decree is passed he is bound by the decree. Any objection from him challenging the execution proceedings on the ground that the execution petition is not prepared in accordance with the rules or there is noncompliance of any provision of law deserve only to be taken note of for its rejection as the execution court is bound to execute the decree. After all procedural requirements are only handmaids of justice. The impugned order passed by the execution court is found to be proper, valid and correct. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv