Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.KALLINGAL MUHAMMED versus MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.THUMBATH AYAMU HAJI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.KALLINGAL MUHAMMED v. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.THUMBATH AYAMU HAJI - WP(C) No. 1991 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 1341 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1991 of 2007(K)

1. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.KALLINGAL MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.THUMBATH AYAMU HAJI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.1991 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is decree holder. Respondent is judgment debtor. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by executing Court rejecting the prayer of petitioner to examine the wife of judgment debtor as a witness. Execution petition was filed for arrest and detention of respondent, for realisation of the decree debt contending that he has the means but neglected to pay the decree debt. Executing Court originally relying on the income of the wife ordered the arrest of respondent. It was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.896/05. This Court found that the wife is an affluent lady and the means of the wife is not sufficient to order arrest against respondent. On the prayer of petitioner, execution petition was remanded to grand opportunity to petitioner to adduce cogent evidence regarding means of petitioner.

2. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that in view of the said opportunity, executing Court should have permitted petitioner to examine the wife of respondent.

3. On going through Ext.P4 order, I find no infirmity in that order warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary W.P.9c)1991/07 2 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The means of the wife of the respondent is not at all a relevant fact as found by this Court in the earlier C.R.P. In such circumstances, examination of the wife was not necessary. Refusal to allow the petitioner to examine the wife of respondent is not illegal or improper. It cannot be interfered. Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd W.P.9c)1991/07 3


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.