Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.N.PARASHURAMAN, RTD. PEON, AGED 62 versus KSHEMA VILASAM KURIES CO.LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.N.PARASHURAMAN, RTD. PEON, AGED 62 v. KSHEMA VILASAM KURIES CO.LTD. - WP(C) No. 31222 of 2005(P) [2007] RD-KL 16577 (24 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31222 of 2005(P)

1. V.N.PARASHURAMAN, RTD. PEON, AGED 62
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KSHEMA VILASAM KURIES CO.LTD.,
... Respondent

2. C.N.BABU, S/O.SANKUVIRUTHIYIL NARAYANAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.SARVOTHAMAN

For Respondent :SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :24/08/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.31222 OF 2005 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 24TH AUGUST, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The 1st respondent is served with notice. Notice to the 2nd respondent returned with the endorsement 'not known'. But, according to me, the 2nd respondent was only a co-judgment-debtor along with the petitioner before the execution court. The issue involved in this Writ Petition can be decided between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-decree-holder who appears through Advocate Mr.Jimmy John Vellanikkaran.

2. This Court became inclined to grant stay only on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the decree-holder within six weeks from 8.11.2005. Mr.K.P.Sarvothaman, counsel for the petitioner submits that the above payment has been made.

3. The ground which is seen seriously raised in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner was only one of the sureties to the principal borrower and that the 1st respondent is sparing the other judgment- debtors who were co-sureties. If the 1st respondent proceeds against the other judgment-debtors in the case, it will be possible for the 1st respondent to recover the entire balance. So long as the petitioner concedes that he is also one of the judgment-debtors, this Court will WP(C)N0.31222/05 not be justified in exonerating the petitioner from the decree liability, sitting in this jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, on considerations of indulgence, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions:- The court below will verify whether the sum of Rs.10,000/- as ordered by this Court has been paid by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court. If on verification it is seen that payment has been made, the court below will issue appropriate directions to the 1st respondent to take effective coercive steps against the other judgment-debtors so that execution proceeds against them also. Coercive action, whether personal or against the property of the petitioner, will be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner pays every month commencing from 17.9.2007 at the rate of Rs.1500/- towards the decree-debt till such time as the entire decree- debt is discharged. It is however made clear that in the event of the petitioner defaulting payment of any of the instalments, he will forfeit the benefit which is granted to him under this judgment.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.31222/05 WP(C)N0.31222/05


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.