Remanded

State of Kerala v. Ouseph Thomas

Kerala HC8 Jan 2009CRP/1008/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge High Court set aside a cryptic order fixing an execution balance amount of Rs.38,442/-. The court remanded the matter for a considered order adjudging the correctness of the amount due, requiring parties to appear within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for disposal afresh with consideration of objections and passing a considered order within two months.

State of Kerala Vs Ouseph Thomas — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 1008 of 2007

¶6

----------------------------------EP.123/1997 IN LAR.108/1989 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM ....................

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR 1:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA

¶9

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER & JD 2:

¶11

OUSEPH THOMAS, KOTTAYAM MUKALAL, NALPATHIMALE, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE.

¶12

REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA.

¶13

ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, FOR R2

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.P. Balachandran, J.

¶16

C.R.P.No.1008 of 2007

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard counsel on both sides.

¶19

The order that is assailed is the order

¶20

passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam on E.P. No.123/97 in L.A.R.No.108/89. It is a cryptic order on the following lines:

¶21

“Judgment Debtor files statement. Balance amount fixed at Rs.38,442/-. For payment to 24.1.2007.”

¶22

The above order does not show as to how the court

¶23

has fixed the amount at Rs.38,442/- and as to

¶24

whether there was any adjudication at all as

¶25

regards the correctness of the amount considering

¶26

also the objection or statement, if any, filed by the petitioner/State.

¶27

In the result, I set aside the impugned

¶28

order and remit the matter back to the court below

¶29

CRP 1008/07 2

¶30

for disposal afresh, passing a considered order adjudging the correctness of the amount due under the decree to the respondent/decree holder. The execution petition shall be considered and appropriate orders passed within two months from today. Counsel on either side shall be at liberty to produce a copy of this order in the court below forthwith to enable appropriate orders being passed by the court below within the time specified. Parties to appear in the court below positively on 30.1.2009 .

¶31

This revision petition is disposed of as above. Issue copy of this order to the counsel on both sides urgently.

¶32

8^th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv

State of Kerala v. Ouseph Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Ouseph 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

Sanjivi and Others Vs Susheela and Others

Chacko Vs Thomas and Other

M/S.Icici Bank Ltd. Vs P.Sabeena

Mrs. Minita Daphe Netto Vs Mrs. Margret Benedict Rodrigues

Samuel T John Vs C.a.Unnikrishnan

Rosamma Vs Chacko Joseph