AJITH KUMAR P.A Vs. UNIVERSAL FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. V. Philip Mthews, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondent/decree holder will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in Ext.P-2 E.P.No.21/2016 in O.S.No.76/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengannur. The respondent herein is the decree holder. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 6.2.2018 rendered by the Sub Court, Chengannur, in the above said Execution Petition, whereby the execution court concerned had ordered detention of the petitioner and handing over his custody for nonpayment of the decretal debt. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P-3 order passed is illegal and it is in flagrant violation of the mandatory procedure contained in Order 21, Rule 40. It is contended that Order 21, Rule 40 only mandates the procedures on appearance of a decree holder in obedience to notice and in this case the petitioner has appeared through power of attorney. The impugned Ext.P-3 order rendered in E.P.No.21/2016 in O.S.No.76/2011 reads as follows: "ORDER