THOMAS Vs. TOMY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order in E. P. No. 544/97 in O. S. 442/1996 dated 25. 3. 2000 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, n. Paravur. The judgment debtor in the E. P. is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents filed the above suit against the revision petitioner seeking specific performance of a contract. THE defendant was set ex pane in the suit on 18. 3. 1997 and the case was posted to 25. 3. 1997 for payment of the balance court fee and adducing ex pane evidence by the plaintiffs. On that date the plaintiffs paid balance court fee and filed an affidavit. Accordingly the suit was decreed relying on the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs and Exts. Al and A2 produced by them, as prayed for.

(3.) THE contention of the decree-holders respondents is that the trial court has passed the exparte decree against the revision petitioner relying upon and accepting not only the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs but also Exts. Al & A2 produced by the plaintiffs in the suit. It is also contended that since the revision petitioner has no contention that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree and the only contention raised is that the trial court has committed an error of law in relying upon the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs which is not evidence in the case, he cannot contend in the execution proceedings that the decree is not executable or the same is void without challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. It is also contended by the respondents that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and it can only interpret the decree and cannot pass a new or fresh decree in the guise of interpretation of the decree. THErefore, according to the respondents, the contentions raised by the revision petitioner against the executability of the decree are absolutely baseless and unsustainable.