This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the second defendant in O.S.No.289 of 1998 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Mavelikkara seeking to set aside Ext.P2 common order passed by the learned Munsiff on the original side, Ext.P3 execution petition and various orders passed on that petition including Ext.P5 order directing the arrest and detention of the petitioner and others and Ext.P8 order attaching the properties of the petitioner and others on the reason that the first respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit has abused the process of court in a manner as to cause serious prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.

2. The facts, according to the petitioner are that the first respondent filed the suit for settlement of accounts between him and the defendants and also for a direction to the defendants to issue a certificate canceling the hypothecation noted in the Registration Book of the plaint schedule vehicle, a lorry which was subject matter of a hire purchase agreement between the plaintiffs and one of the defendants in the suit. Along with the suit, on the application filed by the plaintiff as I.A.No.1669 of 1998, the court passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff of the suit schedule vehicle. Later the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2789/99 for a direction to the defendants to return the vehicle to the plaintiff alleging that in violation of the order of injunction passed on I.A.No.1669 of 1998, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff of the vehicle. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.2790/99 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A for initiating prosecution proceedings against the defendants for the alleged disobedience of the injunction order. According to the petitioner, he did not contest the suit. He was therefore set ex-parte and long later Ext.P1 ex-parte decree was passed in the suit against him. The other defendants should also remained absent when the case was taken up for trial in the special list. The petitioner states that after passing Ext.P1 ex-parte decree the court disposed of I.A.Nos.2789/99, 2790/99 and 224/2000 which was yet another application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A filed by the plaintiff by passing Ext.P2 common order. Ext.P2, according to the petitioner, is the result of gross abuse of legal process. The petitioner had no notice of the prosecution petitions at all. Since the defendants including the petitioner remained ex-parte, Ext.P2 could have been passed only after issuing notice to the defendants and giving them an opportunity to defend them on the applications. According to the petitioner, since the suit was decreed the order of temporary injunction which was allegedly violated did not survive any longer and therefore Ext.P2 was issued totally without jurisdiction. The petitioner further states that after getting the certified copy of Ext.P1 decree the plaintiff as decree-holder filed Ext.P3 execution petition under Order XXI Rules 10 and 11 of the Code for execution not of the decree but the common order Ext.P2. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections to Ext.P3 disputing the very maintainability of Ext.P3. According to him, on 15.6.2001, the execution court passed an order in the E.P. saying that the E.P. was filed on the basis of an order dated 6.3.2001. That order is Ext.P5 which refers to the order dated 6.3.2001 and according to the petitioner there was no order passed on 6.3.2001. It is against Ext.P5 that the 1st judgment-debtor has filed C.R.P.No.1592 of 2001 and that C.R.P. is being considered separately. During the pendency of C.R.P.No.1592 of 2001, which is directed against Ext.P5, the plaintiff decree-holder filed Ext.P6 attachment application seeking attachment of the entire properties of the petitioner. The petitioner complains that the execution court ignored Ext.P7 objections filed by him to Ext.P6 application and readily passed Ext.P8 order of attachment. According to the