PRESTEEGE BOMBAY DYEING Vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the 1st and 3rd judgment debtors in E.P.No.69 of 2007 in O.S.No.422 of 2001 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent is the decree holder and the respondent No.2 is the 2nd judgment debtor. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.422 of 2001 and the petitioners and the 2nd judgment -debtor were the defendants. The suit was decreed directing the petitioners and the

(2.) ND respondent to pay to the 1st respondent/plaintiff an amount of Rs. 2,37,431/ - with interest from 01/06/2000 till the date of plaint @ 12% and thereafter @ 6%, on the 1st respondent/plaintiff returning the goods supplied by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/ defendants and to pay costs of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 2. The 1st respondent has filed E.P.No.69 of 2007 and on receipt of the notice, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent filed their objections. In the objection, it is stated that the decree holder has not till date returned the goods supplied to them back to the defendants. It is further submitted that the decree holder has no case that the goods supplied by the judgment debtors have already been returned back to them. The decree holder has not complied with the terms of the decree and, as such, he is not entitled to execute the decree. In short, the execution petition is a premature one.

(3.) THE 1st respondent/decree -holder filed objections to those petitions. After considering the objections, the Execution Court dismissed both the above petitions on a finding that the applications are intended only to protract the matter and also to prevent the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. This common order passed on the above E.As. is under challenge in this writ petition on various grounds.