Allowed

Ramakrishnan and Others v. P.K.Nazeer

Kerala HC27 May 2011OP(C)/408/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Petition regarding execution proceedings where the debtors' arrest was ordered based on an unreasoned finding of sufficient means, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order for lacking clarity and reasoning, directing the executing court to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; Executing Court directed to consider matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.

Ramakrishnan and Others Vs P.K.Nazeer — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

OP(C).No. 408 of 2011(O)

¶6

-----------------------OS.191/2004 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. VELU G.P AGED 62 YEARS, SADAN HOUSE KOMALAPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

RATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,SADAN HOUSE KOMALAPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

SYAMKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,SADAN HOUSE KOMALAPURAM, AVALOOKUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

SRI.R.VIJAYACHANDRAN

RESPONDENT(S):

P.K.NAZEER,S/O.P.K.KUNJUMAKAR PAYYIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., PEROOR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, T.P.MEERAN, S/O.PAREETH RAWTHER, SUMAYA MANZIL, PEROOR PO, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(C).No. 408 of 2011(O)

¶20

¶21

PETITIONERS EXTS:

¶22

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.191 OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANNUR

¶23

EXT.P2:- COPY OF E.P.NO.87/2008 FILED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶24

EXT.P3:- COPY OF DEPOSITION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE DECREE HOLDER IN E.A. 462 OF 2009

¶25

EXT.P4:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.27.10.2010 IN E.A.NO.462 OF 2009 IN E.P.87/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶26

EXT.P5:- COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATD.27.11.2010.

¶27

EXT.P6:- COPY OF ORDER DTD.9.12.2010 IN E.A.NO.579/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶28

EXT.P7:- COPY OF I.A.NO.1198/2009 IN O.S.NO.191/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANNUR FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶29

EXT.P8:- COPY OF I.A.1197/2009 IN O.S.191/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANNUR FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶30

EXT.P9:- COPY OF I.A.446/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANNUR.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL

¶32

/TRUE COPY/

¶33

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶34

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶35

¶36

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.87 of 2008 in O.S.No.191 of 2004 on the file of

¶39

the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha. The Execution Petition was filed for realisation of the decree amount by arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison. The Executing Court passed the following order:

¶40

“From the evidence adduced by the power of attorney holder of the Decree holder, it is seen that the Judgment debtors are contract workers and are having means to pay the decree amount to the Decree holder. No contra evidence is adduced by the Judgment debtors. Therefore, I find that the Judgment debtors have sufficient means to pay the decree amount to the Decree holder. Hence issue warrant. Report to 27.11.2010.”

¶41

From the order passed by the court below, it is not

¶42

¶43

clear as to what is the nature of the evidence adduced on behalf of the decree holder and what was brought out

¶44

in his cross examination. How the court arrived at the conclusion is not clear from the order. There is no discussion of the evidence adduced in the case. The order is cryptic and bereft of details. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The Executing Court shall consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.

¶45

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶46

cms

Ramakrishnan and Others v. P.K.Nazeer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan and Others v. P.K.Nazeer

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

Mini Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

K.S.E.Board Vs Daniel K.M.

C.K.Ramachandran Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

K.K.Noushad Vs Mr. Muhammed Haneef

Mohanakurup Vs D.Prasannakumar