Allowed

Vyaparavijayam Higher Purchase (P) Ltd. v. P.D.Hariharan

Kerala HC15 Jul 2009CRP/26/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revisited an order under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC where the Sub Judge found the respondent lacked means to pay. The Court ordered a fresh enquiry into the respondent's pension and financial status, finding initial reasons regarding family obligations irrelevant to asset liability assessment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the Sub Judge directed to make a fresh enquiry into the judgment debtor's actual pension and means to pay.

Vyaparavijayam Higher Purchase (P) Ltd. Vs P.D.Hariharan — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931

¶4

CRP.No. 26 of 2009()

¶5

-------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2007 IN EP.222/2003 IN OS.494/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA ....................

¶6

PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER:

¶7

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

¶8

VYAPARAVIJAYAM HIER PURCHASE (P) LTD., NADAR BUILDING, RICE BAZAR, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHAIRMAN ANTONY.

¶9

BY ADVS. MR.N.SUKUMARAN, MR.S.SHYAM.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.3:

¶11

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

¶12

P.D.HARIHARAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, POOVATHUMKADAVIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU, ALA. KODUNGALLUR.

¶13

BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P.No.26 OF 2009

¶18

Dated this the 15^th day of July 2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision is directed against the order

¶21

passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda in E.P 222/2003 in O.S 224/1998. Petitioner is the decree holder in the above suit. Suit is one for money. Since the decree was not satisfied, the above execution petition was filed in which the decree holder applied for the arrest and detention of the judgment debtors. The present revision arises from an order passed after an enquiry on the question whether the third judgment debtor in the execution petition has means to pay the decree debt which had been disputed by him when notice was served under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC.

¶22

Admittedly third judgment debtor is a retired

¶23

C.R.P.No.26 OF 2009 2

¶24

defence personal. Whereas the decree holder has a case that he is getting a monthly pension of Rs.7,000/- the judgment debtor contended that his pension is only Rs.3,519/-. In the enquiry giving rise to this order on the side of the decree holder, two witnesses were examined, and for the third judgment debtor he was examined and Ext.B1 to B6 were exhibited in evidence. Learned Munsiff after appreciating the materials produced upheld the objection raised by the judgment debtor that he has no means to pay the decree debt. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order the decree debtor has filed this revision.

¶25

3. I heard the learned counsel on both

¶26

sides. Perusing the order, it is seen that the records produced by the judgment debtor indicated that he was getting pension only of the sum claimed by him and that, according to the Munsiff, was

¶27

hardly sufficient to meet his requirements for livelihood. On the other hand, the decree holder

¶28

C.R.P.No.26 OF 2009 3

¶29

has got a case pursuant to the revision of pension after orders passed on the recommendations of the Pay Commission third judgment debtor is getting much more than what is reflected in the documents produced by him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find, a further enquiry into the matter is essential to advance the ends of justice. I am persuaded to do so because some of the reasons given by the learned Sub Judge to hold that the third judgment debtor is not having sufficient means to pay the decree debt observing that his daughter is studying for M.C.A, he has to discharge some loans already availed while ascertaining the question whether he has the means to pay the decree debt cannot be approved. Setting aside the impugned order, I direct the learned Sub Judge to examine the question afresh in which the judgment debtor shall be directed to file an affidavit as to the particulars of pension he is getting now, with the name of the bank or treasury

¶30

C.R.P.No.26 OF 2009 4

¶31

through which it is disbursed to him. On filing of such an affidavit it will be open to the decree holder to file a counter affidavit, if need be, after making such enquiries. It is also open to the decree holder to produce any other material by way of documentary evidence to prove the means of the judgment debtor and to counter that the judgment debtor can also produce documents to support his case. Scope of enquiry should be limited in the lines indicated so that the court can pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations, the revision is disposed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

¶34

P.A TO JUDGE

¶35

vdv

Vyaparavijayam Higher Purchase (P) Ltd. v. P.D.Hariharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyaparavijayam Higher Purchase (P) Ltd. v. P.D.Hariharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soman Vs Thomas

C.Nagamma Vs K.v.Purushothaman

Krishna Moolya Vs Venkatramana Bhat

P.L.Navis Vs the Canara Bank

Annie Abraham Vs K.S.E.Board

Asha Krishnan Vs Beena