JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are the 1st and 3rd judgment debtors in E.P.No.69 of 2007 in O.S.No.422 of 2001 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent is the decree holder and the respondent No.2 is the 2nd judgment debtor. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.422 of 2001 and the petitioners and the 2nd judgment-debtor were the defendants. The suit was decreed directing the petitioners and the 2nd respondent to pay to the 1st respondent/plaintiff an amount of Rs. 2,37,431/-with interest from 01/06/2000 till the date of plaint @ 12% and thereafter @ 6%, on the 1st respondent/plaintiff returning the goods supplied by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/ defendants and to pay costs of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 2. The 1st respondent has filed E.P.No.69 of 2007 and on receipt of the notice, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent filed their objections. In the objection, it is stated that the decree holder has not till date returned the goods supplied to them back to the defendants. It is further submitted that the decree holder has no case that the goods supplied by the judgment debtors have already been returned back to them. The decree holder has not complied with the terms of the decree and, as such, he is not entitled to execute the decree. In short, the execution petition is a premature one. 3. As per order dated 07/11/2008, the Principal Sub Court, directed the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, who are the judgment debtors, to take back the goods from the 1st respondent in the presence of an Advocate Commissioner who shall prepare an inventory of the goods returned and to report to the court. One Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/judgment-debtors were directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as batta to the Commissioner directly. A further direction was also given to the judgment debtors to deposit the decree amount with interest within two weeks. But the petitioners have not complied the direction in the order dated 7/11/2008. But, thereafter, they filed E.A. Nos.182 and 183 of 2009 for reviewing the order dated 7/11/08 and also for condoning the delay in filing the petition for reviewing the said order. 4. The 1st respondent/decree-holder filed objections to those petitions. But the petitioners have not complied the direction in the order dated 7/11/2008. But, thereafter, they filed E.A. Nos.182 and 183 of 2009 for reviewing the order dated 7/11/08 and also for condoning the delay in filing the petition for reviewing the said order. 4. The 1st respondent/decree-holder filed objections to those petitions. After considering the objections, the Execution Court dismissed both the above petitions on a finding that the applications are intended only to protract the matter and also to prevent the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. This common order passed on the above E.As. is under challenge in this writ petition on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments challenging the maintainability of the Execution Petition itself, in addition to the challenge against the order passed in E.A. Nos.182 and 183 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree cannot be executed, unless and until the decree holder returns the goods supplied by him in compliance with the decree. The 1st respondent has not complied that part of the decree so far and the Execution Petition itself is a premature one. The Execution Court ought to have found that the goods supplied by the judgment-debtors have been utilized by the employees of the 1st respondent and hence the 1st respondent has not complied with the terms of the decree. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent was always ready and willing to return the goods and his willingness was expressed by letter dated 5/10/2005, to which the petitioners replied that they are unaware of the decree, since they did not get a certified copy of the decree. Similarly, though the court, by itself, appointed a Commission for the proper execution of the decree for the benefit of both parties and issued a direction to the petitioners to avail the opportunity by producing the goods to the Commission. The petitioners have not complied the said direction and thereby flouted the order itself. After long delay, they have filed the above petitions without bona fides. Thus, the petitioners are intended to protract the matter so as to prevent the execution of the decree. 7. Heard both sides. The petitioners have not complied the said direction and thereby flouted the order itself. After long delay, they have filed the above petitions without bona fides. Thus, the petitioners are intended to protract the matter so as to prevent the execution of the decree. 7. Heard both sides. In view of the rival contentions, the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in any of the findings by which the impugned order under challenge has been passed. 8. Going by the decree, it is seen that both parties are burdened with reciprocal obligations i.e., the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2,37,431/-with interest from 1/6/2000 till the date of the plaint at the rate of 12% and thereafter at the rate or 6% on the 1st respondent/plaintiff returning the goods supplied by the defendants and to pay costs of the plaintiff. 9. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that in compliance with the said order, the 1st respondent had informed the petitioners his willingness to give back the goods and the petitioners were required to take back the same. But the petitioners responded negatively in a way stating that they were unaware of the decree since they did not get the certified copy of the decree. In view of the fact that in the trial side they were represented by a counsel and contested the matter on merits, I find that there is no bona fides in that contention. Thereafter, the court granted another opportunity to execute the decree and in a way convenient to both parties. An Advocate Commission had been appointed to supervise the transfer of goods after taking an inventory of the goods. But the petitioners had not availed of that opportunity also. Had the petitioners availed of that opportunity, they could have verified the short quantity, if any. But the petitioners have wilfully given up that opportunity also. Therefore, in view of sequence of events, after filing the Execution Petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have no such intention to execute the decree properly, in a way convenient to both parties. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged for another opportunity to execute the decree in a way they could get back the goods after verifying the quantity by the court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged for another opportunity to execute the decree in a way they could get back the goods after verifying the quantity by the court. But, I am of the opinion that, on merits, the petitioners are not entitled to get that prayer allowed. But I am of the opinion that a further opportunity can be given by taking a lenient view; but on adequate cost only. I find no illegality or impropriety in the findings by which E.A.Nos.182 and 183/2009 are dismissed by the court below. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the E.P. Itself is a premature one and unless and until the goods are returned, the E.P. is not liable to be executed, I reject the said contention on a finding that the respondents had already taken a bona fide attempt to return the goods to the petitioners. 11. The Execution Court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. The decree simply direct returning of goods only. But for proper execution, I am also of the opinion that an inventory must be prepared before delivery of the goods to the petitioners so as to make it as record only. In that view, order dated 7/11/2008 passed by the court below will stand revived, provided that the petitioners shall deposit Rs.10,000/-in the Execution Court as cost within a period of one month from today and the same shall be payable to the 1st respondent. The Execution Court is further directed to proceed with the order dated 7/11/2008 and execute the decree accordingly, if the petitioners deposit the said cost within the time specified above. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.