1. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.12 of 2010 in O.S.No.114 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana, is before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to set aside Exts.P4, P6 and P7 orders of the said court.

2. On 19.10.2017, when this original petition came up for admission as 'today motion' it was noticed that the documents produced as Exts.P4 and P7 are neither a certified copy nor a true copy of the impugned orders. Registry was directed to get an explanation from the Filing Scrutiny Officer, who numbered this original petition without even noticing the fact that copy of Exts.P4 and P7 orders, which are impugned in this Original Petition, are not placed on record.

3. In paragraph 5 of the original petition, the petitioner has stated that the document marked as Ext.P4 is a typed copy of the proceedings in E.A.No.21 of 2014 and that, Ext.P7 is the text of the order passed in E.A.No.41 of 2017 and E.A.No.44 of 2017. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the original petition, the petitioner has verified that the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P8 are true copies of the originals.

4. On 19.10.2017, this Court issued urgent notice on admission to the respondent by special messenger and it was made clear that the maintainability of this original petition will be decided with notice to the respondent. This Court has also ordered that, if E.P.No.12 of 2010 in O.S.No.114 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana stands posted to 20.10.2017 for delivery, actual delivery shall be deferred for a period of one week.

5. On 30.10.2017, when this original petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has obtained certified copies of Exts.P4 and P7 orders, which shall be produced before this Court on 31.10.2017 itself, along with a memo. After recording the said submission, this Court ordered that the interim order dated 19.10.2017 shall continue to be in force for a further period of two weeks. On 31.10.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced certified copies of Exts.P4 and P7 orders, along with a memo dated 31.10.2017.

6. On 9.11.2017, when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court noticed from the certified copy of the order dated 12.10.2017 of the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana in E.A. Nos.41 of 2017 and 44 of 2017 in E.P.No.12 of 2010 produced along with the aforesaid memo dated 31.10.2017, that the document marked as Ext.P7 in this original petition is not a true copy of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment and accordingly the matter is listed today for further consideration.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor and also learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, on the question of maintainability of this original petition.

8. The document marked as Ext.P7 in this original petition, as a typed copy of the order in E.A.No.41 of 2017 and E.A.No.44 of 2017, reads thus;

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT

AT KATTAPPANA

Typed copy of the order in E.A.No.41/2017 and

E.A.No.44/2017

Point I in E.A.No.44/2017 Petitioner prayed to condone the delay of sixty days to institute E.A.41/2017. According to the petitioner his counsel made oral submission before the court to review the impugned order. He was of the impression that his court suo-motu review the order on the basis of oral submission. Hence he did not prefer any written application. When he noticed that this court had not reviewed its impugned order he lodged E.A.No.41/2017 for review. There is a delay of 60 days to institute E.A.No.41/2017. The reason stated by the petitioner according to me is not sufficient to condone the delay. Moreover the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 27.06.2017. So the application for the review ought to have filed on or before 26.07.2017 but it is filed only on 25-9-2017. The sa