SWAMINATHAN Vs. K PREMKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in these Writ Petitions.

(2.) THESE Writ Petitions are in challenge of separate orders passed by the learned Munsiff, Palakkad in E.P.Nos.227 of 2010, 224 of 2010 and 226 of 2010, respectively in O.S.Nos.555 of 2008, 526 of 2008 and 524 of 2008. Learned Munsiff in the absence of petitioners and acting on the affidavit filed by respondent/decree holder found that petitioners, inspite of having means refused/neglected to pay the amount due under the decrees. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that finding is not correct and that petitioners did not get opportunity to contest the applications preferred by respondent for personal execution. It is contended by learned counsel that assuming that petitioners did not respond to the notice issued under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") warrant of arrest had to be issued under Sub- rule (2) of Rule 37 and that enquiry regarding means could be conducted only when petitioners appeared (pursuant to the notice) or when they were brought (as per warrant of arrest) before court.