IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5755 of 2005(I)
1. SASIDHARAN, KANISSERYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. UMMANANDAN, VALLIYIL HOUSE,
Vs
1. RAVI, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :15/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.5755 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 15th June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioners is that the execution court has
ordered warrant against them in execution of a decree for prohibitory
injunction on the basis that they have violated the decree.
2. Even though several attempts were made to take effect
service on the respondent, the respondent decree-holder has not
been served with notice. As directed by me copy of the Writ Petition
was sent to the Advocate who appeared for the respondent before
the court below by registered post with acknowledgment card. Even
then there is no appearance for the respondent.
3. Mr.P.K.Muhammed, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are not parties to the decree. A perusal
of the copies of the decree and the execution petition will clearly
show that the petitioners are not parties to the decree. In fact the
order of arrest seems to have been passed upon E.A.No.11/05 which
was later filed by the respondent-decree-holder alleging that the
petitioners along with one K.K.Viswanathan are the stooges of the
judgment-debtors and that they have assisted the judgment-debtors
in the matter of violating the decree. Mr.Muhammed submits that the
W.P.C.No.5755/05 – 2 –
petitioners came to have any information about the pendency of
proceedings only when they were attempted to be arrested on the
basis of the orders passed in E.A.11/05. In other words, the
submission is that orders was passed in E.A.11/05 without hearing
the petitioners. I notice merit in the above contention. Accordingly,
the order of arrest passed against the petitioners on the basis of
E.A.11/05 in E.P.24/02 in O.S.No.329/97 on the files of the Munsiff’s
court, Peermade is set aside. The learned Munsiff is directed to issue
notice to the petitioners, hear them and also the decree-holder and
pass fresh orders in E.A.11/05 at his earliest and at any rate within
four months of receiving copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE