The court emphasized that execution orders should not be dismissed based on minor procedural discrepancies without allowing opportunities for correction.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2025)

The OP (C) No.1131 of 25 filed by the petitioner/

decree holder by challenging the order dated 05.04.2025 directing the petitioner/decree holder for taking steps for production of stamp papers, for execution of documents.

2. The CRP No.143/2025 filed by the same decree holder by challenging the dismissal of EP No.348 of 2024 arising out of OS No.334/2016 by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the OS No.334/2016 against the defendant for specific performance of contract, based upon the mandatory injunction. In respect of an agreement, for signing the document for the purpose of production of the

2025:KER:52357 same before the Education Authorities for transferring of the management. The decree was challenged before the District Court as well as this Court in the second appeal which came to be confirmed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the EP No.348 of 2024 before the Court below and the notice was issued to the defendant. accordingly judgment debtor appeared and filed various objections and by impugned order dated 05.04.2025 in Ext.P4 the execution court overruled the objections raised by the judgment debtor and finally directed the petitioner to file the production of the stamp paper if any for the purpose of execution of the documents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the petition, OP(C) No.1131 of 25.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner said to be filed the draft before the same court and draft has been approved by the execution court. However, it is permitted to obtain the signature of decree holder in the documents but when

2025:KER:52357 the case was called before the court on 11.4.25 the petitioner/ decree holder said to be filed another draft by signing the same wherein the execution court dismissed mainly on the ground that the draft approved by the court is altogether different from the document signed by the decree holder and there was direction to the Court by this Court was time bound disposal therefore EP is came to be dismissed which is under challenge before this Court in CRP No.143/25.

6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records on perusal of the same, of course the counsel for the respondent rightly contended that the order in Ext.P4 which was challenged in OP(C)No.1131/25 is in favour of the decree holder and there is no adverse was against the OP before the court. On careful reading of the Ext.P4 order dated 05.04.2025 there is nothing wrong committed by the court below by directing the petitioner for production

2025:KER:52357 of the draft and approved and it is just mentioned as filing the stamp paper. In fact, there is a question of filing any stamp paper before execution Court even for execution of any document by the trial court as there is a circular from this court even the stamp paper shall not be purchased by decree holder shall deposit the amount for the purpose of purchasing the stamp paper by the court through Treasury.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no order aggrieved by the petitioner for filing OP (C) No.1131 of 25. Therefore, the petition is deserved to be dismissed.

8. In respect of the CRP No.143 of 25, The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the order passed by the execution court could have been challenged under Order 21 Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (CPC) and filing CRP is not correct. Whereas, the counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no ex-

2025:KER:52357 parte order, in order to set aside