IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 2116 of 2003() --------------------- {IN EP174/2001 IN OS.845/1994 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------ DR. ASHOK MADHAVAN NAIR, SON OF DR. P. MADHAVAN NAIR, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.SHYAMALA ASHOK, 5D PREVINCE GROVE, PROVIDENCE ROAD, PHARMACY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PANDAN KRISHNAN (DIED) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: PANDAN SHARADA (MOTHER) 'SEEMAS' CHIRAKKAL, P.O. PANANGAVU. 2. PANDAN AJITH KUMAR S/O. MALINI, 'SEEMAS', DO. DO. 3. PANDAN JYOTHISH KUMAR, DO. DO. 4. PANDAN SREEJESH KUMAR, DO. DO. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRP NO.2117 OF 2003 ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.2116 & 2117 of 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 O R D E R These two revisions arise from two separate orders passed by the transferee execution court, Sub Court, Thalassery holding that the decrees transferred to that court for execution are inexecutable. The decree holders, who have moved for execution of the decree and, later, got it transferred to the above court since the judgment debtors are stated to be having properties within the jurisdiction of that court, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sub Court, Thalassery, as indicated above, have filed these revisions. 2. Though the decree holders are different, since common questions of law and facts are involved and as the judgment debtors in both the proceedings are common, these revisions are disposed of under this common order. C.R.P.No.2116 & 2117 of 2003 :: 2 :: 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. From the submissions made and also perusing the impugned orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thalassery, it is seen that the decrees had been passed against one Pandan Krishnan, who is no more. The decrees are now being sought to be executed against his legal representatives, his wife and children. 5. The learned counsel for respondents, the legal representatives of the above said Pandan Krishnan contend that the decrees had been passed not against Pandan Krishnan in his individual capacity, but as the Managing Director of a company. So much so, execution against the judgment debtors and their properties was objected to before the transferee court, and on the materials placed and construing the decree that had been passed, the objection was upheld by the learned Sub Judge, according to the learned counsel. No C.R.P.No.2116 & 2117 of 2003 :: 3 :: interference with the orders so passed by the transferee court to which the decree had been transferred, in the given facts of the case, is called for, is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. To what extent the transferee court can go into the objections canvassed against the executability of the decree raised by the judgment debtors is the question that emerge for consideration in the present case. This Court in Ramankutty v. Kali Nani {1986 KLT 54} analysing Sections 42 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable for resolving the question has held thus: “The transferee court is not vested with any jurisdiction under S.42 C.P.C. to review the order of the transferor court or reconsider it on any grounds. If the judgment debtor wants to review it he should approach the court which passed the decree. S.42 of the CPC itself makes it clear that the transferee court C.R.P.No.2116 & 2117 of 2003 :: 4 :: is empowered to execute the decree sent to it by the transferor court and as Order 21 Rule 26 gives power to the transferee court to stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the court which passed the decree for an order of stay the position admits of no doubt that the transferee court is not vested with full powers as if the transferor court has lost its seisin over the matter.” 7. Perusing the impugned orders, it is seen that the transferred court in the present case on the basis of the promissory note and also such other materials which gave rise to the decree sent over for execution had formed some conclusions with respect to the executability of the decree which in fact was outside its domain. In fact if the legal representatives of the judgment debtor have any tenable objection to the executability of the decree against them, whether it be passed against Pandan Krishnan in his personal capacity C.R.P.No.2116 & 2117 of 2003 :: 5 :: or in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Company, such objections could be canvassed against the executability of the decree only before the transferor court. It is open to the legal representatives to seek for stay of the proceedings by the transferee court for a reasonable period as provided under Rule 26 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise their objections whatever that be, against the executability before the transferor court which transferred the decrees. The orders impugned in these revisions passed by the transferee court are set aside and the transferee court is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, subject to providing reasonable opportunity to the judgment debtors, if any application is moved under Order 21 Rule 26 Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the proceedings, to raise their objections before the transferee court, as provided by law. C.R.P.No.2116 & 2117 of 2003 :: 6 :: Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//