JUDGMENT

The petitioners impugn Ext.P11 order of the Additional Sub Court, Palakkad, in E.P.No.97/2019 in LAR No.1/2017, asserting that Ext.P7 order issued by it earlier is in error, and that the calculation of amounts found due to the petitioners is egregiously improper. They, however, concede that they did not challenge Ext.P7 until now, but that they filed a calculation statement before the Execution Court, which has been rejected, leading to Ext.P11 order being issued. They thus pray that Exts.P7 and P11 orders be set aside.

2. Sri.T.M.Sunil – learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P5, the remittances alleged to have been made by the respondents towards Income Tax are all belated and hence that the Execution Court was without error in having earlier issued Ext.P7 order. He submitted that when Ext.P7 remains uncontested, it was improper for the petitioners to have then filed a calculation statement contrary to the findings therein; and obviously, therefore, that the said Court could have only rejected it through Ext.P11 order. He thus prayed that this original petition be dismissed.

3. I have examined the afore rival submissions