Partly allowed

T.K.Kunjumon v. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd.

Kerala HC9 Jul 2008WP(C)/11281/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 to quash munsiff court order dismissing execution application. High Court quashed the order for not considering grave allegations of fraud and non-representation, directed proper enquiry, and stayed salary attachment.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order quashed; munsiff directed to conduct enquiry in E.A.337 of 2007; attachment stay order.

T.K.Kunjumon Vs Little Flower Kuries and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 11281 of 2008(R)

¶6

-------------------------------------AS.100/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI OS.581/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI (EA 377/07,EP 26/05) ....................

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-----------------

¶9

T.K.KUNJUMON, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT THURUTHUKKAT HOUSE, MARATHURUTH DESOM, AYEMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶11

RESPONDENTS: ----------------------

¶12

1. LITTLE FLOWER KURIES AND ENTERPRISES LTD FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-1, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FORT COCHIN, AND BRANCH AT JEMMU THAVI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI.O.T.ALEXANDER, S/O.O.C.THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS,RESIDING AT.OLASSAYIL HOUSE, BEACH ROAD,FORT COCHI DESOM,FORT COCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶13

2. P.J.GLARIS, W/O.K.T.MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS SWASTHOM, RESIDING AT KURISINKAL HOUSE, DOOR.NO. XX1.713,OF COPORATION OF COCHIN,PERUMPADAPPU DESOM EDACOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶14

3. K.C.JOSEPH PAUL, S/O.K.A.CLARENCE, AGED 47 YEARS, D.E.O.,UNION BANK OF INDIA SERVICE BRANCH,ERNAKULAM, REISIDING AT KODIKKATT HOUSE, DOOR.NO.10/1029,OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN,VELI DESOM,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,

¶15

4. K.P.FELIX ANTONY, S/O.K.B.PAUL, AGED 33 YEARS,PEON GR.II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KALATHARA HOUSE, IN DOOR NO.18/2480 OF CORPORATION OF COCHIN, THOPPUMPADY DESOM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN - R1

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C).11281/2008-R

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.581/1998. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.100/01. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 04/12/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT IN E.A.337/07 IN E.P.26/05 IN O.S.581/98 DATED 04/12/07.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER DATED 09/01/08.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

// TRUE COPY //

¶25

Rs/

¶26

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

-----------------------------------------W.P(C). NO.11281 OF 2008

¶28

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2008

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff in E.A. 337 of 2007 in E.P. 26 of 2005 in O.S. 581 of 1998. Execution petition was filed for execution of the decree passed by the learned Munsiff in favour of the respondent/decree holder and against petitioner and other defendants. Order of attachment of the salary for realization of the amount due under the decree was sought. E.A. 337 of 2007 was filed to withdraw the order of attachment contending that petitioner did not engage any counsel and did not file any written statement in the suit and the decree was obtained fraudulently. An affidavit of the counsel was also filed to the effect that he was not engaged by the party and he did not file any vakalath or written statement. Under Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff

¶31

WPC 11281/08

¶32

¶33

dismissed the petition for the sole reason that there was no representation for the party and party was absent and therefore there is no evidence to support the petition.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner

¶35

and respondents were heard.

¶36

When serious allegations are raised in E.A. 337 of 2007 and that too supported by the affidavit of the counsel, learned Munsiff should have dealt with the matter more seriously. As the merit of the petition was not considered in Ext.P4 order it is quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to conduct proper enquiry on the allegations raised in the petition and pass appropriate order in E.A.337 of 2007 in accordance with law. Till disposal of the application, salary of the petitioner shall not be attached.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶39

Okb/-

T.K.Kunjumon v. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Kunjumon v. Little Flower Kuries and Enterprises Ltd.

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

The K.S.E.B Vs Shibu

Rajendra Babu and Another Vs Chandrasekharan and Others

E.J.Sebastian Vs M.M.Sebastian

Sree Ganesh Chitts & Bankers, Vs M/S. Light Point

Cherusseri Sainudheen Musaliyar Vs Palliyali Kunhi Muhammed Kutty Alias

Rossy Vs Joy @ Ouseph and Another