Dismissed

Ramakrishnan v. Rajan

Kerala HC13 Feb 2013OP(C)/496/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the attachment of property order issued by the Sub Court. The High Court held that the trial court was satisfied that the petitioner intended to delay execution. A detailed enquiry into maintainability is not required at this stage. Petitioner can request lifting of attachment by furnishing sufficient security.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Sub Court to lift attachment by furnishing sufficient security.

Ramakrishnan Vs Rajan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 496 of 2013 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.8120/2012 IN O.S.NO.1668 OF 2012 ON the FILE OF TH PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MILANCHERY MEENAKSHI AMMA, PERUMBILLISSERY DESOM CHEWUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶11

RAJAN,

¶12

S/O.MAPRANAN KOCHAN, CHERUKUNNU DESOM, PUTHUR VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, PUTHUR P.O.-680 014.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.8120/2012 IN O.S.NO.1668/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶17

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES DATED 15.07.2011.

¶18

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.01.2012.

¶19

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.01.2012 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

¶20

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS SIBLINGS TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIN FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.8120/2012 IN O.S.NO.1668/2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2012 IN I.A.NO.8120/2012 IN O.S.NO.1668/2012 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL

¶24

True Copy

¶25

P.A to Judge

¶26

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =========================

¶27

O.P(C).No.496 of 2013

¶28

============================ Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.1668 of 2012 of the

¶31

Principal Sub Court, Thrissur, aggrieved by Ext.P7, order of attachment of his right, title and interest in the attachment schedule property.

¶32

According to the respondent/plaintiff, in connection with an agreement for construction of building for petitioner, certain amount is due to him and for recovery of that amount, respondent laid the suit. According to the petitioner, there was a sale agreement between the parties on 04.01.2012. Petitioner filed O.S.No.266 of 2012 in the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur for prohibitory injunction. Respondent filed O.S.No.164 of 2012 in the Sub Court for return of the advance money. In O.S.No.164 of 2012, respondent did not mention the agreement now pressed into service nor, was any relief claimed in that suit with respect to the said agreement. It was also contended that even if there was any such agreement, in view of the agreement for sale dated 04.01.2012, the disputed agreement (pleaded in this case) was not required to be performed in view of Sec.62 of the Contract Act.

¶33

O.P(C).No.496 of 2013

¶34

¶35

Learned Sub Judge rejected the contentions, found prima facie case in favour of respondent and ordered attachment.

¶36

It is contended by the learned counsel that for reasons above stated, the trial court ought to have found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent and that prima facie, the suit is not maintainable.

¶37

At this stage what is required to be decided is only whether the Court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that petitioner, with intend to obstruct or delay execution of the decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of ht ewhole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court. A detailed enquiry as to whether the suit is maintainable for the reasons stated by petitioner is not required to be undertaken at this stage.

¶38

In the above view of the matter and in the light of the affidavit of the respondent leading to Ext.P7, order, I do not find reason to interfere. If petitioner is desirous of lifting the attachment, he can furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below and request that Court for lifting the attachment.

¶39

With the above observation this original petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶42

Sbna

¶43

True Copy P.A to Judge

Ramakrishnan v. Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. Rajan

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

Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs Rojan Pellissery

Wilson Vs Dasan

Krishnan Reghunathan Babu Vs Pappukutty Venugopalan @ Venugopal Sodar

Bernard Manuel @ Roy Vs Shine Augustine

Sarojinivalli Vs Ramachandra Shenoy

Radha Vs Sowmini