IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31939 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.138/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAMANI,W/O.ANANDAN, ANEESH BHAVAN, NIRAPPATHU, MATRAMURI, KARAVALOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1.LALI MATHAI, NIRAPPATHU LIMA BHAVANIL, MATHRA MURI, KARAVALOOR MURI, KOLLAM. 2.K.G.VIJAYAN PILLAI, SANTHI BHAVAN, MATHRA MURI, KARAVALOOR VILLAGE. 3.ANANDAN,ANEESH BHAVAN, NIRAPPATHU, MATRAMURI, KARAVALOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31939 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. The 3rd respondent in the present writ petition is her husband and he was the 1st defendant in that suit. Suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 with three others as plaintiffs was compromised with the defendants, and Ext.P1(a) contain the terms of the compromise settled by the parties. The plaintiffs/decree holders initiated steps for execution of the compromise decree by filing E.P.No.56 of 2006 before the Munsiff Court, Punalur. Though notice was given, the judgment debtors remained absent and they were set ex parte by Ext.P2 order dated 20.1.2007. When execution proceedings continued, it is seen, vide Ext.P3 order, the counsel who appeared for the judgment debtors reported no instructions, which, prima facie indicate WPC.31939/09 2 that after passing of the ex parte order in the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors had entered appearance through counsel. When Amin was deputed to execute the decree, he reported of noncooperation by both sides, and pursuant thereto, the decree holders again applied for appropriate orders by the court for executing the decree. The application so moved by the decree holders was allowed by the court. Meanwhile, the present petitioner, one among the judgment debtors, moved an application on the trial side for setting aside the compromise decree contending that it is vague, inscrutable and inexecutable and also that she was not a signatory to the compromise decree. On the execution side, another petition was moved challenging the execution of the decree. The execution court, after considering the merit of that petition, dismissed it vide Ext.P12 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From WPC.31939/09 3 the submissions made and also taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. Whatever be the objections raised by the petitioner against the compromise decree, it has to be taken note till date the petitioner has not moved any application as contemplated by the rules for setting aside the compromise decree as vitiated by fraud. Ext.P1(a) would show that she had subscribed her signature in the compromise. The court, which passed the compromise decree, has to pass appropriate orders in the event of any challenge by any of the parties that the compromise is vitiated by fraud or illegality. Petitioner has moved Ext.P11 application at a belated stage before the trial court is canvassed as a petition moved as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. But after going through Ext.P11 order, prima facie it appears that what she had canvassed is only ignorance of the compromise decree advancing a case that her husband, who is a drunkard had been influenced by the plaintiffs in the suit in fabricating a compromise in the suit, and on the basis of which, the WPC.31939/09 4 compromise decree happened to be passed. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of Ext.P11 application since it is pending enquiry before the court. On the facts and circumstances presented, this is not a fit case where visitorial jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked for the reliefs canvassed by the petitioner. Ext.P11 application moved by the petitioner, needless to point out, has to be disposed by the court in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp