IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).NO. 24 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.107/2002 OF SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- ISHWARA R.AIL, S/O.RAMA BELCHAPADA, RESIDING AT UPPALA AILA, UPPALA VILLAGE, P.O.UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P.M.ABBAS HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT THAWAKKAL, ACHEKARE HOUSE, PAIVALIKE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.24 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P.No.88 of 2007 in O.S. No.107 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kasargod is the petitioner before me challenging Exts.P7, P12 and P13, orders. There is a decree in favour of the respondent for payment of money based on a compromise dated 03.12.2009. Since according to the respondent amount due under the decree was not paid he launched execution against petitioner. Though petitioner was given notice of the motion under Order XX1 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure he appeared and pleaded no means. Later he was set ex parte. Respondent produced Exts.A1 to A3. In the meantime there was an application to set aside the ex parte order against petitioner which learned Sub Judge disallowed. Based on Exts.A1 to A3 it is found that petitioner has sufficient means and warrant of arrest was ordered. That order was sought to be recalled by E.A. No.219 of 2009. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P13, order. Hence this petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. As per Ext.P7, order executing court found means for O.P(C) No.24 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner. That decision is based on Exts.A1 to A3. Exhibit A3 is the copy of sale deed dated 12.06.1997 in favour of petitioner and Ext.A2 is the copy of building tax extract dated 14.07.2009. Petitioner did not adduce contra evidence. It is based on Exts.A1 to A3 that executing court found that petitioner has sufficient means and ordered warrant of arrest as he refused and neglected to pay the amount. 3. So far as E.A. No.218 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte order as against petitioner is concerned a medical certificate was produced by petitioner but that was not proved in the proper manner by examining the medical officer concerned. Executing court was not impressed by the medical certificate and refused to interfere with the ex parte order. 4. What remained is Ext.P13, order refusing to recall the warrant. Executing court observed that there is no reason to recall the warrant which was passed on merit. On hearing counsel and on going through the orders under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with impugned orders. Original Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv