IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19169 of 2009(O)
1. P.K. GOPINATHAN, KOTTUNGAL VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYYAMMA, REVATHI HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent :SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.19169 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following
relief:
i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P6
and to set aside the same, allowing Ext.P4
E.A.
2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.52 of
2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara. The
decree executed was one for money and a sum of Rs.40,778/-
was claimed in the execution petition. Petitioner resisted the
execution contending that he has no means. Court below,
after enquiry, passed Ext.P1 order overruling the plea so
WPC.19169/09 2
canvassed to avoid the payment of the decree debt. That
order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by
way of a writ petition, and, pursuant to interim orders passed
by this Court, petitioner deposited Rs.20,000/- towards the
decree debt as a condition precedent for staying the operation
of the order directing issue of warrant against him. The writ
petition was later disposed granting the petitioner three
months time to satisfy the decree. Ext.P2 is the copy of that
judgment. Meanwhile, the petitioner had moved an
application before the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief
Commission claiming that he is an agriculturist, and, thus
entitled to benefits under the Kerala Farmers’ Debt Relief
Commission Act, 2006. The Commission had passed Ext.P3
order directing the Government to take over his liability to the
tune of Rs.25,000/- and the respondent to waive the balance
amount is the case of the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the order
passed by the Commission. On the basis of Ext.P3 order of the
Commission, petitioner moved an application before the
execution court for refund of the amount of Rs.20,000/-
already deposited pursuant to orders passed in the writ
petition. That application was objected to by the decree
WPC.19169/09 3
holder filing Ext.P5 objections. The execution court, after
hearing both sides, dismissed Ext.P4 application vide Ext.P6
order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged
in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Inviting my
attention to the definition of ‘debt’ as under Section 2(vii) of
the Kerala Farmers’ Debt Relief Commission Act, the learned
counsel for the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order passed by
the execution court contending that Ext.P3 order passed by
the Commission constituted under the above Act has a
overriding effect against the decree sought to be executed,
and as such, the request made under Ext.P4 application for
refund of the amount deposited has to be allowed. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree
holder submitted that suppressing the filing of the writ
petition and conditional order passed by the court to stay the
operation of issue of warrant against the judgment debtor, the
judgment debtor had moved the Commission and got Ext.P3
WPC.19169/09 4
order, which, according to the counsel, could in no way
unsettle the interim order and also final Ext.P2 judgment
passed by this Court in the writ petition. The liability
outstanding against the petitioner as on the claim raised
under the execution petition was Rs.40,778/-. Out of which,
Rs.20,000/- was deposited by him pursuant to interim orders
passed by this Court in the writ petition moved by him as a
condition precedent for staying the operation of the warrant
issued against him by the execution court. It is evident from
the claim made before the Commission that the
petitioner/judgment debtor had sought for the relief under the
provisions of the Kerala Farmers’ Debt Relief Commission Act
only in respect of the balance amount, which was outstanding
on the decree after the deposit of Rs.20,000/-. Even if it is not
so, there can be no doubt that the Commission is incapable of
setting at naught any order passed by this Court whether it is
prelimirary or final . If at all any such order is passed by the
Commission, it would amount to an affront to the authority on
this Court under the Constitution. The ingenious attempt
made by the petitioner by filing Ext.P4 application for getting
refund of the amount deposited on the basis of Ext.P3 order
WPC.19169/09 5
passed by the Commission deserve to be deprecated. I find no
merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp