Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K. THANKAPPAN versus ECHARAN THANKAPPAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K. THANKAPPAN v. ECHARAN THANKAPPAN - WP(C) No. 14137 of 2006(G) [2007] RD-KL 11603 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14137 of 2006(G)

1. P.K. THANKAPPAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. ECHARAN THANKAPPAN,
... Respondent

2. MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.14137 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 29th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Even though notice is served on the respondent-decree-holder, he has not entered appearance and resist the prayers in the Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 order by which the learned Munsiff found on the basis of the unrebutted evidence adduced by the decree-holder that the petitioner-judgment-debtor who is having sufficient means wilfully neglected to pay off the decree debt. The petitioner complains that the learned Munsiff did not grant the request which was made on his behalf for an adjournment so that he can adduce evidence. I notice that it was subject to the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.3500/- to the decree-holder within two months from 31.5.2006 that this court granted stay. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to inform me as to whether the above condition has been complied with or not. Since it is seen that the petitioner was not able to adduce counter evidence to the evidence adduced by the respondent-decree-holder, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions: The court below will verify whether the petitioner has remitted W.P.C.No.14137/06 - 2 - or deposited Rs.3500/- ordered by this court on or before 31.7.2006. If on verification it is seen that he has remitted the amount within the stipulated time, then the court below will hold up the execution proceedings for a further period of six months. It is open to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt either in a lump or in instalments during the said period. At any rate the order of stay will not continue beyond the period of six months. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.