BALAKRISHNA PILLAI Vs. ROBINSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the impugned order passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.86 of 1997 in E.P.No.108 of 1996 in A.R.C. No.16 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Though the names of respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 are printed in the list, they neither appeared in person nor represented through counsel.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the outset that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and probe the circumstances under which the decree was passed and therefore, he has urged that conversely, in this case, the executing Court has called for the records from the Registrar of Chits, Marthandam on the basis of the petition filed by the respondents on the ground that the Registrar of Chits passed an executable award even though they were not liable for the claim made by the respondent therein/revision petitioner herein. Hence, it is seen from the impugned order that the very award passed by the Registrar of Chits was questioned by the respondents on the basis that the same is not binding on them.