Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS versus M

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS v. M-28 MARANCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE - CRP No. 998 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 8682 (25 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 998 of 2006()

1. T. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M-28 MARANCHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID

For Respondent :SRI.D.KISHORE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :25/05/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.No.998 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 25th May, 2007

ORDER

The revision petitioner who is the sole judgment-debtor in E.P.No.98 of 2006, a proceeding for execution of the award in A.R.C.No.94/2003-04 challenges the order of the execution court directing his arrest. Mr.C.Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Munsiff that the revision petitioner was having sufficient means to pay the decree debt and that there was negligent in the matter of paying the same is not based on any legal evidence. I do not think that the learned counsel is justified in submitting so. There was evidence of P.W.1. I notice that absolutely no counter evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner. Considering the request of the learned counsel to have a remand of the matter, I am inclined to do so, but only on terms. Mr.D.Kishore, counsel for the respondent submits that as on date the total E.P.claim is more than Rs.21,000/-. The impugned order will stand set aside on condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent either directly or by deposit before the court below a sum of Rs.5000/- within a period of six weeks from today. If payment or deposit is made within the stipulated time as directed above, the C.R.P.No.998/06 - 2 - matter will go back to the execution court which will permit both parties to adduce further evidence and take a fresh decision. This order will not stand in the way of the parties sorting out the issue amicably in the meanwhile. The C.R.P. 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.