Remanded

State of Kerala v. Mathai Thomas

Kerala HC19 Nov 2007CRP/872/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was disposed of by the High Court of Kerala. The Court found the lower court's order fixing a balance amount without providing any reasoning to be unsustainable, set it aside, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with reasons within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Subordinate Judge setting the balance amount at Rs.14,776/- set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with reasons within six months.

State of Kerala Vs Mathai Thomas — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1929 CRP.No. 872 of 2007() --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/11/2006 IN EP.NO.87/2002 IN LAR.99/1993 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM ....................

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR

¶6

--------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶7

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDU

¶8

RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------

¶9

MATHAI THOMAS, POOTHRIKKA PUTHENPURAYIL, VELLOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT MALAYIL PUTHENPURAYIL, PERUMPALLY KARA, MULANTHURUTHY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.G.SUSANTH KRISHNAN

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.N.Krishnan, J. ======================== C.R.P.No.872 of 2007

¶13

========================

¶14

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2007.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kottayam in E.P.No.87 of 2002 in L.A.R.No.99 of 1993. By the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the balance amount at Rs.14,776/-. I do not find that any reasoning is given by the learned Subordinate Judge for fixing the same. I am informed by the learned Government Pleader that the decree holder claims it as 21,168/-. Government filed a statement stating that the balance is nil. In the Civil Revision Petition a specific ground is taken to the effect that the learned Subordinate Judge has gone wrong in awarding interest, etc. and therefore, the arrival of the amount at Rs.14,776/- is not accordance with law.

¶17

Since I am unable to know how the amount has been arrived at by the lower court, the only remedy left for this Court is to set aside the order and remit back the matter to the same

¶18

CRP 872/07 -: 2 :-

¶19

court for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. Needless to say that the court below is expected to give its reason why the amount has been fixed and thereafter proceed in accordance with law and dispose of the matter within a period of six months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court below on 19.12.2007.

¶20

Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly

¶21

M.N.Krishnan, Judge.

¶22

ess 19/11

State of Kerala v. Mathai Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Mathai Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nechikundu Nadichi Vs K.Saradha

K.S.E.B. Vs Rajamma

Lalu K.John Vs P.J.Thomas

Mooladiyil Chandran Vs Mangattu Kandi Alikoya

Chenthamarakshan Vs Taluk Land Board

K.K.Kalyani Vs Ayyappan