Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI.K.J.JOSE, S/O.JAICOB versus MR.JOHNSON ALAPPATT, MANAGING DIRECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI.K.J.JOSE, S/O.JAICOB v. MR.JOHNSON ALAPPATT, MANAGING DIRECTOR - WP(C) No. 16764 of 2004(U) [2007] RD-KL 9080 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16764 of 2004(U)

1. SRI.K.J.JOSE, S/O.JAICOB,
... Petitioner

2. SRI.M.J.SIJU, S/O.JOSE, MANKUNJI HOUSE,

Vs

1. MR.JOHNSON ALAPPATT, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRIP.G.SURESH

For Respondent :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :30/05/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.16764 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 30th May, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order by which the execution court found that the revision petitioners are neglecting to pay the decree debt in spite of their having sufficient means and ordered arrest on that basis is under challenge in this proceeding under Article 227 initiated by the judgment-debtors. The total E.P. claim as on date, according to the counsel for the respondent, should be above Rs.75,000/-. Going by appendix to Ext.P5 order R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined on the side of the judgment-debtors. The evidence on the side of the respondent-decree-holder was the oral evidence of P.W.1 litigation clerk. May be there was no effective cross-examination of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 was convincing to the learned Munsiff. But I find that in Ext.P5 the learned Munsiff has not appreciated the counter evidence which was adduced by R.W.1 and R.W.2. Rather the order proceeds as if no counter evidence at all was adduced by the judgment-debtors. Since there is total lack of appreciation of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the judgment-debtors and the order itself proceeds as if no counter evidence is adduced by the judgment- debtors, Ext.P5 has to be set aside. But I notice that this court W.P.C.No. 16764/04 - 2 - became inclined to admit this Writ Petition and grant stay only on condition that the petitioners remit a sum of Rs.3000/- within six weeks. I am of the view that such a condition will be perfectly justified even for directing the remand as indicated above. The Writ Petition accordingly will stand disposed of issuing the following directions: Ext.P5 order is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to pass fresh orders referring to the counter evidence which has been adduced by the petitioners also within three months of receiving copy of this judgment subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay Rs.3000/- to the respondent every month commencing from 15.6.2007 till such time as fresh orders are passed by the learned Munsiff. In the event of any default by the petitioners, they will forfeit the benefit of this order of remand and the impugned order will revive.

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.