IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13974 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.92/2008 IN OS.108/1999 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RELEEFFA BEEVI, W/O. PHIROSKHAN, ANTHINATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.C.A.JOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13974/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF E.A.92 OF 2008 IN O.S.108/99 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ORDERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.13974 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to call for the records in E.A.No.92/2008 in E.P.No.102/2002, in O.S.No.108/1999 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha. ii. to pass an order setting aside the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha in Ext.P1 application on 6.4.2009. iii. to pass an order dismissing Ext.P1 application. iv. to pass an order staying all further proceedings in E.P.No.102/2002 in O.S.No.108/1999 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thodupuzha, pending disposal of this writ petition. WPC.13974/09 2 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.102 of 2002 in O.S.No.108 of 1999, and the respondent, the decree holder. The decree executed is one passed in a suit for money. Execution of the decree by the decree holder bank is challenged by the judgment debtor contending that since the amount claimed in the execution petition towards the decree debt exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, only the Debt Recovery Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to entertain an application for execution of the decree passed in the suit. The learned Munsiff, negatived the objections raised by the judgment debtor vide Ext.P1 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P1 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Admittedly, when the suit was instituted and also the decree was passed, the amount was less than Rs.10 lakhs. That was the position when the decree holder previously applied for execution of the decree also by filing the execution petition. After attachment WPC.13974/09 3 of the property of the judgment debtor, and at the stage, steps were completed for sale of that property, the judgment debtor sought indulgence to pay the decree debt in instalments. That relief being granted, the execution petition was closed. However, later, after making two instalment payments, the judgment debtor defaulted in paying future instalments. The decree holder thereupon moved a fresh execution petition by which time, the decree debt exceeded Rs.10 lakhs. It was under the above circumstances, the judgment debtor resisted the execution contending that the Debt Recovery Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to realise the decree as the decree debt exceeded Rs.10 lakhs. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor relied on Punjab National Bank, Dasuya v. Chajju Ram and others ((2000) 6 SCC 655) contending that when the decree debt due to the bank exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, only the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to execute that decree. But after going through Ext.P1 order passed by the court below, I find no merit in the objections raised by the learned counsel. The decree was passed for an amount less than Rs.10 lakhs and the previous execution petition was also WPC.13974/09 4 filed to realise the decree debt, which was within the competence of the execution court. The judgment debtor, at the stage when her property was brought to sale, got a favourable order from the court to pay the decree debt in instalments, and, thereby, avoided the sale of her property. The execution petition was closed on account of the relief so granted to the judgment debtor, it is seen, was subsequently revived after filing of the present execution petition since the judgment debtor defaulted instalment payments, with the decree holder moving an application for that purpose as E.A.No.41 of 2009. The above application E.A.No.41 of 2009 was filed at a later stage, after filing of the present execution petition, in no way affects the legal right of the decree holder to get the earlier execution petition revived consequent to the default of the judgment debtor in honouring her commitment to pay the decree debt in instalments. The grant of that relief by the executing court led to closing of the previous execution petition. The previous execution petition filed for a sum less than Rs.10 lakhs, which had been closed earlier in the circumstances indicated, was revived under Ext.P1 order, and WPC.13974/09 5 that being so, I find the challenge raised against the execution on the ground that the Debt Recovery Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to execute the decree has no merit. The writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp