IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29433 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 114/08 IN OS.77/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.S.VIJAYAN, S/O.SIVARAMAN, GEETHA BHAVANAM,PADANAYARKULANGHARA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, KRISHNAVILASATH, PUTHUKKADU MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. 2. MOHANDAS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, SYAM NIVAS, PUTHUKKADU MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. 3. SYAMALA, D/O.SAROJINI, PUTHUKKADU MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29433 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PROCEEDING SHEET OF THE EXECUTION COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29433 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the third judgment debtor in O.S.No.77 of 2005 on the file o the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. Decree executed is one passed in a suit for money and the first respondent is the decree holder. The execution court has ordered for issuing warrant against petitioner/third judgment debtor to realise the decree debt. 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. Notice was ordered to the first respondent/decree holder since service could not be effected after considerable time. Petitioner was directed to serve notice on the counsel appearing for the first respondent in the execution court. Petitioner has filed an affidavit affirming that service of notice attempted on the counsel for the first respondent was declined to be accepted. I find no reason to discard the affirmation so made. It is declared that proper service has been effected on the first respondent. W.P.(C).No.29433 of 2009 - O 2 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner/third judgment debtor. 4. Petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to substantiate his objections to the request made by the decree holder for issuing warrant against him, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the copy of the B Diary in the execution proceedings. It is seen that the petitioner did not file objections after making a representation before the court that such objections have been filed after receiving a notice issued under Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When that be so, normally, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner/third judgment debtor. While admitting the writ petition, petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the decree debt due as a condition precedent for staying the execution of the warrant. It is submitted that the interim direction to deposit the amount fixed has been complied with. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the balance amount under the decree approximately now come only to Rs.8,000/- giving deduction to the amount already deposited. W.P.(C).No.29433 of 2009 - O 3 Considering the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find one more opportunity can be extended to the petitioner to file his objections as to why warrant should not be issued against him, subject to the condition he shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- more before the court below towards the decree debt within a period of one month. If the amount of Rs.5,000/- as directed under this judgment is deposited within the time fixed the impugned order passed by the court below issuing warrant against him shall stand vacated with a direction to the court below to provide him an opportunity to file objections. In the event of deposit and entertaining of his objections the court below shall pass appropriate orders examining such objection in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-