Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YOHANNAN, PADINJARE VILA VADAKKATHIL versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


YOHANNAN, PADINJARE VILA VADAKKATHIL v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - CRP No. 703 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 16583 (24 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 703 of 2005()

1. YOHANNAN, PADINJARE VILA VADAKKATHIL
... Petitioner

2. A.MOLIKUTTY, DO. DO.

3. A.OOMMACHAN, DO. DO.

4. A.SALIKUTTY, DO. DO.

5. A.LIZYKUTTY, DO. DO.

6. A.ROSSAMMA, DO. DO.

7. A.LIJI ALIAS A. LILLY, DO. DO.

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :24/08/2007

O R D E R

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

C.R.P.No. 703 of 2005 A

Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007

O R D E R

The decree holders in E.P.No.10 of 2004 in L.A.R.No.55 of 1985, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottarakkara, challenge the order dated 8th April, 2005 passed by the court below. By the impugned order, the court below accepted the statement filed by the judgment debtor. The case of the petitioners is that the contentions put forward by the decree holders were not considered by the court below. It is submitted that both sides had filed claim statements. The order impugned does not clearly indicate the reason for rejection of the claim made by the petitioners except stating that the petitioners are not entitled to interest on solatium. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no claim for interest on solatium since claim for interest on solatium was specifically rejected by the judgment of the reference court.

2. When both parties filed statement and there is dispute as to the amount recoverable, executing court should consider the rival contentions and pass an order as to the amount due to the decree holders. Reasons also should be stated as to why a particular claim is accepted or rejected. Since it is not clear from the order impugned as to how the court below C.R.P. NO.703 OF 2005 arrived at the figure of Rs.1,143/- as payable to the decree holders, the order passed by the court below is set aside. The court below shall consider the matter afresh and pass a considered order on the merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/


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.