Review of a writ order quashing an arrest warrant issued for a judgment debtor. The petitioners offered new medical documents. The court held no mistake appeared on the face of the records and dismissed the petition, condoning the delay.
The review petition is dismissed and the delay is condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2007 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1929
RP.No. 838 of 2007(A)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1480/2007 Dated 29/06/2007
REVIEW PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------
ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, MAJIDA MANZIL, PAPPALA, PAZHYA KUNNUMEL DESOM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOHAMMED KUNJU AYISHA BEEVI, KODIYIL VEEDU, THATTATHUMALA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMAL DESOM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 & 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. MASOODA, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, LILA VILASOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE & DESOM.
2. ANANDA RAGHUVARAN, ANAND, KARICHAYIL, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE.
3. KRISHNA SARASAMMA, ANAND, KARICHAYIL, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 838 OF 2007 IN
W.P.C. NO. 1480 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of November, 2007.
O R D E R
This review petition is preferred to review the judgment of this Court dated 29th June, 2007. The writ petition was filed against the order of the Court below to issue warrant of arrest against the judgment debtor. Notice was issued to the other side and they did not enter appearance. Thereafter this Court perused the documents produced in the writ petition and was satisfied that the persons were suffering from serious ailments such as cancer and heart problem and taking note of the two decisions of this Court in Xavier v. Canara
Bank Ltd. (1969 KLT 927) and that of the Apex Court in Jolly Geroge Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (1980 KLT
375) found that though the judgment debtor is having a pension he has to treat his wife and himself and therefore there is no intentional evadement of payment of decree amount and therefore set aside the order of the Court below
R.P.838/07 IN WPC 1480/2007
-:2:-
ordering arrest. Now, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that these documents were not produced before the Court below. It is right but the documents which are produced here are treatment records and not mere medical certificates and this Court was convinced about the genuineness of the same and therefore proceeded to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. I do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the records in the order passed by me or other grounds which attract review of the order under Section 47 of the CPC. In the result, the delay is condoned and the review petition is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the documents produced in this review petition, which were not before the Court below, constitute grounds for review under Section 47 of the CPC.
Whether the delay in filing the review petition can be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Xavier v. Canara Bank Ltd.Distinguished¶21
Xavier v. Canara Bank Ltd. (1969 KLT 927)
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of CochinDistinguished¶22
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin (1980 KLT 375)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Salam
Masooda
Ananda Raghuvaran
Krishna Sarasamma
M.N. Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
