1. A decree for prohibitory /mandatory injunction was passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in O.S. No. 34 of 2000 of that court. That decree restrained respondent/judgment debtor from interfering with the affairs of Kashi Math Samsthan. Decree for mandatory injunction directed respondent to return the deities, insignia and paraphernalia of the said Samsthan to the petitioner. On the request of petitioner, decree certificate was transferred to the District Court, Ernakulam for its execution. There, petitioner filed E.P. No. 167 of 2011. That petition was made over to the Ist Additional District Court, Ernakulam for execution. There, respondent raised various objections including executability of the decree and territorial jurisdiction of the Additional District Court, Ernakulam to execute the decree. Those objections were overruled and that has attained finality.

2. For execution of the decree for mandatory injunction, petitioner took various steps including issue of warrant of arrest of respondent obviously for his detention in the civil prison as permitted under Order XXI, Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"). In the meantime, properties (stated to be) belonging to the respondent was placed under attachment. While requesting to set aside the ex parte order against him in the execution proceeding, respondent claimed that properties attached do not belong to him personally. In the meantime, warrants of arrest issued to the respondent were returned for one reason or other including that respondent could not be traced. At that stage, petitioner filed Ext.P3, application o E.A. No. 345 of 2012 under Sec. 51(e) and Sec.151 of the Code requesting the executing court to direct the Director General of Police (State Police Chief, Kerala) to arrest and produce respondent in the executing court to facilitate his detention in the civil prison within a time to be fixed by the court and to direct the said officer to locate paraphernalia and other items in terms of the decree sought to be executed.

3. Application was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. Executing court by Ext.P5, order dated 28.11.2012 refused to grant relief as prayed for in Ext.P3, application. Thus challenge to Ext.P5, order in this original petition.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has contended that even as found by the executing court, respondent is not abiding by the orders of court and makes his persons scarce even for execution of warrant by the Amin but the executing court felt helpless in the matter and has refused to allow the request in Ext.P3, application if not in the form it is made, by moulding relief. It is also contended that many of the decisions relied by the executing court have no application in view of the explanation to Order XXI Rule 32(5) of the Code added by Act 22 of 2002. Reliance is placed on the decision in Kochupennu Ambujakshi and others Veluthakunju Vasu Channar and others (AIR 1993 Kerala 62) to contend that in appropriate cases, so far as it is not interdicted any provision in the Code, it is within the power of the executing court to order police assistance to the Amin to execute the decree. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that having regard to the manner in which respondent has conducted himself, this court may not feel helpless in assisting petitioner to reap the fruits of the decree by directing the police to render necessary assistance to the Amin.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has contended that property stated to be belonging to the respondent is placed under attachment and hence it was not necessary to direct detention of the respondent in civil prison though, it was permissible for the court to direct both. It is also contended that Rule 32 (5) of Order XXI of the Code has no application to the facts of the case since that direction would apply only when there is a failure on the part of judgment debtor to do something, it is within the power of decree ho