This order allows a judgment debtor to file objections against an interim attachment of retirement benefits. The court directs the executing court to hear both parties and pass orders within three months.
Petitioner allowed to file objections before the Executing Court within three weeks; Executing Court to pass orders within three months.
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 K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933
OP(C).No. 1532 of 2011(O)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 884/09 IN EP 277/07 IN OS.977/2003 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER
B.SUKESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, T.C.(TRIVANDRUM CITY) 4/1950, PCWA (PANDITS COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION), A.52, KOWDIAR
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (JUDGEMENT DEBTOR).
BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI.P.M.SANEER
SMT.A.NEENA JOSE
SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 BY ADV.SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC, INDIAN BANK
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 1532 of 2011(O)
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN, J .
--------------------------------O.P(C)No.1532 OF 2011
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 ad interim order in E.A.No.884 of 2009 in E.P.No.277 of 2007 in O.S.No.977 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In O.S.No.977 of 2003, a decree was passed against the petitioner on 21.7.2004. Execution Petition was filed in 2007 for realisation of the amount. It is stated by the petitioner that he was ex parte in the Execution Proceedings. In 2009, the decree holder filed E.A.No.884 of 2009 to pass an order of attachment attaching the retirement benefits due to the first judgment debtor (petitioner). The Executing Court passed an order dated 28th September, 2010 (Ext.P3) attaching a sum of `95,000/-(Rupees Ninety five thousand only) from the retirement benefits due to the petitioner (first judgment debtor). Ext.P3 is under challenge in this Original Petition.
R.P.No.355 OF 2011 2
attachment is against law as now contended by the petitioner, he can very well point out the same before the Executing Court. The Executing Court is bound to consider such objection, notwithstanding that the judgment debtor did not appear before the Executing Court earlier. Even if the party does not appear before the Executing Court at the earlier stages, that does not mean that he cannot raise a contention that the property attached was not liable to be attached.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .
cms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a judgment debtor can challenge an interim attachment order passed ex parte before the executing court?
B. Sukesh
Indian Bank, ThycAUD Branch, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director, Office of the Directorate of Cencus Operations, Kerala
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
