Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMASUNDARAM, S/O.KOCHUNNI NAIR versus HMT LTD., LAMPS DIVISION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOMASUNDARAM, S/O.KOCHUNNI NAIR v. HMT LTD., LAMPS DIVISION - WP(C) No. 16575 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 9404 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16575 of 2007(W)

1. SOMASUNDARAM, S/O.KOCHUNNI NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. HMT LTD., LAMPS DIVISION,
... Respondent

2. M/S.PRAKASH STORES, PRAKASH BUILDERS,

3. M.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.KOCHUNNI NAIR,

4. SREEKUMAR, S/O.KOCHUNNI NAIR,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No.16575 OF 2007 W

Dated this the 4th June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 order. The writ petitioner moved Ext.P5 application for the production of a document to show that he had retired from the partnership firm but it is stated in Ext.P5 that the said document is sought to be produced to show that he is not at all liable for any of the decree amount. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has made available copy of the decree. Rightly or wrongly the decree casts liability on this writ petitioner as well. So, the question whether the judgment debtor is liable or not cannot detain us longer and there cannot be an adjudication of the same under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. At the same time, learned counsel for the writ petitioner had taken me to the order of the Court in Ext.P3 wherein the Court has stated that he was an active partner and was deriving a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and therefore he has got the means to pay and he should pay the amount. So, in order to establish that factor he may have to rely on some document to prove that he ceases to be a partner from a particular date. It is a relevant document for the purpose of proving his means especially when the trial court has opined so in WPC 16575/07 2 Ext.P3 order. Though I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order on account of the fact that the full facts are not revealed in the affidavit, I feel the writ petitioner should be given an opportunity to file an appropriate application showing the real reason for production of document and the executing court is directed to dispose of the said application after hearing the other side. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the writ petitioner is directed to file a fresh petition showing the real reason for the summoning of the document. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.