Partly allowed

Wilson Louis v. Balan Nadar

Kerala HC4 Dec 2012OP(C)/1081/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order converts a sentence of civil prison detention into attachment of adjoining property for six months upon payment of restoration expenses. The court directs payment to restore a damaged wall, setting aside the detention order conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Detention in civil prison converted to attachment of adjoining property for six months contingent on payment of ₹20,000 for restoration.

Wilson Louis Vs Balan Nadar — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1081 of 2012 (O)

¶6

EP.NO.63/2010 IN OS.789/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

WILSON LOUIS, CHERUPUSHPA VILASOM, BUNGLOW, MANNAMKONAM ANCHUTHENGUMMOODU, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

STEPHEN LOUIS, CHERUPUSHPA VILASOM, BUNGLOW, MANNAMKONAM ANCHUTHENGUMMOODU, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶11

SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

BALAN NADAR

¶14

AGED 68, S/O.JAMES ORIGINALLY FROM PANTHAPLAVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU VAZHTOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA NOW RESIDING AT MELARIYODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU KADAMPANAMKONAM, VANDANNOOR DESAM, MARTHOOR VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

¶15

SANTHA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.BALAN NADAR ORIGINALLY FROM PANTHAPLAVILA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU VAZHTHOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA NOW RESIDING AT MELARIYODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU KADAMPANAMKONAM, VANDANNOOR DESAM MARTHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

¶16

SHIBU KUMAR, AGED 40, S/O.BALAN NADAR, VAZHTHOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA NOW RESIDING AT MELARIYODE ROADARIKATHU VEEDU KADAMPANAMKONAM, VANDANNOOR DESAM, MARTHOOR VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(C) NO. 1081/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT OF OS.789/2009. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION. EXT.P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/10/2011 IN EP.63/2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF EA.86/2012 FILED IN EP.63/2010 IN OS.789/2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF EA.89/2012 FILED IN EP.63/2010 IN OS.789/2009. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF EA.87/2012 FILED IN EP.63/2010 IN OS.789/2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF EA.88/2012 FILED IN EP.63/2010 IN OS.789/2009.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶26

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶27

OP(C) NO. 1081 OF 2012

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The court below has by the order impugned directed the petitioners/judgment debtors to be detained in civil prison for two months for alleged violation of a decree for injunction. The decree holders/respondents have also been permitted thereunder to restore the portion of the northern compound wall of the decree 'A' schedule property and recover the costs from the petitioners.

¶31

The petitioners chose to remain ex-parte even after receipt of notice in the execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No satisfactory explanation is offered as to why the petitioners did not enter appearance and contest the execution petition filed alleging violation.

¶32

The finding of the court below that a portion of the northern compound wall was demolished at the instance of the petitioners is rested on evidence. The court below has relied on the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as well as the report and

¶33

¶34

OP(C) No. 1081/2012

¶35

plan of the Advocate Commissioner evidenced by Exts. C1 and C1(a).

¶36

The petitioners are not averse to make a payment to the respondents in order to purchase peace and give a quiteous to the issue. It is stated that the expenses for restoration of the portion of the northern compound wall of the decree 'A' schedule property would come to about ` 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only).

¶37

I convert the sentence of 'detention in civil prison' as one for attachment of the property of the petitioners lying adjacent. Such an attachment would continue for a period of six months as provided under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶38

The petitioners shall also pay a sum of ` 20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards expenses for restoration of the portion of the northern compound wall. The said sum shall be paid to the counsel for the respondents within a period of one month from today.

¶39

¶40

OP(C) No. 1081/2012

¶41

The impugned order directing detention in civil prison and permitting the restoration of the compound wall at the costs of the petitioners would stand set aside if the sum of ` 20,000/- is paid within one month as directed above. The order impugned will remain intact in case the amount as directed is not paid by the petitioners to the counsel for the respondents in time.

¶42

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶43

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶44

ncd

Wilson Louis v. Balan Nadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilson Louis v. Balan Nadar

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

M/S.Mardec R.K. Latex Pvt.Ltd. Vs Abraham Kalamannil

Unnikrishna Pillai Vs Sukumara Pillai

M.F.Badarudheen Vs Azeez

Mathen Varghese Vs Gopinatha Menon

Hamsa Vs Fathima

George Thomas Vs C.D.James