Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors 2,3 and 5 in C.A. No. 10 of 1984 of Land Tribunal, Alappuzha which was being executed in the Munsiff s Court, Kottarakkara. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the Munsiff s Court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order which directs payment of the amounts brought to Court under attachment to the decree holder subject to riling of a cheque application. 3. The prayer in O.A. No. 10 of 1984 aforementioned was for enhancement of ground rent payable by the revision petitioners. The Tribunal found that the rent was liable to be enhanced from Rs. 35- per mensem to Rs. 108- per mensem with effect from 9.3.1984. After dismissal of A.A. No. 60 of 1987 challenging the decision as also C.R.P. No. 1980 of 1989, the present respondents filed E.P. No. 31 of 1992 before the Munsiff s Court, Kortarakkara and got certain amounts attached and it was thereupon brought to Court. It was then that the respondents filed the cheque application and the impugned order allowing payment was passed. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the execution petition itself was not maintainable before that Court in view of S.26(3A) and S.73(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and R.23 of the Kerala Land Reforms Tenancy Rules which provide for execution only through revenue recovery proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the entire proceedings in the execution court was, thus, vitiated and that the impugned order is, therefore, bad. 5.1 have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also and perused the report received from the Court concerned. The Court only mentioned that the provision of law invoked by the petitioners had not been mentioned in the E.P. and that a sum of Rs. 14,004/- has been received in the Court under attachment. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that under S.26(4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as it originally stood, orders of the Land Tribunal under this Section could be executed through civil court and it was therefore, that the E.P. was filed. It is also submitted that as on the date of filing the E.P. the Court had, however, lost such jurisdiction in view of the amendment brought through Act 35 of 1969. 6. It is also submitted that as on the date of filing the E.P. the Court had, however, lost such jurisdiction in view of the amendment brought through Act 35 of 1969. 6. The position that emerges therefore, is that the execution court actually had no jurisdiction to act upon the E.P. filed in the case; but in the absence of any objection with regard to the jurisdiction raised by the judgment debtors, the Court proceeded with the execution and brought down certain amounts. Till that stage there was no challenge of the proceedings and it is only when the cheque application was about to be moved that the present objection was raised. 8. I have perused the available records and find that there was no specific challenge made by the judgment debtors before the execution court with regard to its jurisdiction to execute the order of the Land Tribunal. The money has now come to Court; and what remains to be done is only disbursement of the amount to the persons who are entitled to receive the same. There is no dispute raised by the revision petitioners that more amounts than due have come to Court or that the amount is actually not due to the respondents. 9. Even though there is some error of jurisdiction committed by the Court below, I do not think that it will be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. As already mentioned, the entitlement of the respondents to receive the amounts in question is not challenged and only the technical question of jurisdiction is raised and that too for the first time before this Court. If the revision petitioners had challenged the question of jurisdiction, there could have been merit in the contention that the Court below has erred in the aspect of effecting attachment As on the date of passing of the impugned order the only question that was live before the execution court was whether the amount actually received under attachment should be disbursed to the present respondents or not. In other words, only an administrative act of issuing cheque remained to be done as on that date and viewed from that perspective I do not think that any illegality was committed in directing payment of the amount to the persons actually entitled to receive the same. In other words, only an administrative act of issuing cheque remained to be done as on that date and viewed from that perspective I do not think that any illegality was committed in directing payment of the amount to the persons actually entitled to receive the same. In any case the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify interference by this Court. The interests of justice will be met if it is directed that the Court below should close the E.P. forthwith and direct the decree holder to pursue his further rights, if any, under the relevant order of the Tribunal before appropriate forum. Directed accordingly. This, however, will not be a bar to the issuance of the cheque for the sum of Rs. 14,004/- to the respondents herein as and when application is made by the landlord - execution petitioners. 10. before parting with the case a note of caution to the Subordinate Courts. Process in E.Ps. should not be issued as a matter of course. A duty rests in courts to apply its mind as to the prima facie maintainability of an E.P. especially when the decree sought to be executed is not its own. Had this been done, a mistake as has arisen in the case, which eluded the attention of all concerned until the proceedings reached its last lap, would not have arisen. Whether the prayers in the E.P. require issuance of notice under R.22; whether the decree is barred by limitation; whether the steps sought in the E.P. are against persons bound by the decree and in accordance with the provisions of law, whether the decree produced is executable in the particular court, etc. should attract the attention of the Court before process is issued. If any doubt is felt, the Court will be justified in ordering a preliminary hearing as to maintainability, etc. even at that stage The revision is disposed of with the above observations.