Dismissed

T.K.Suresh v. Safiya

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016CRP/251/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order finding the petitioner, a registered pharmacist, had sufficient means to pay the decree amount but refused to do so. The High Court upheld the finding, granting the petitioner 45 days to pay the decretal amount without issuing detention warrant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted 45 days to pay; Execution Court to keep proceedings in abeyance for that period.

T.K.Suresh Vs Safiya — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 251 of 2016 ()

¶6

----------------------EP NO. 71/2014 IN OS NO. 216/2011 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

¶8

T.K.SURESH

¶9

S/O.THALIYATH KRISHNAN NAIR, THALIYATH MEDICALS, VALIYAKUNNU (PO), VALIYAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶11

RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER :

¶12

SAFIYA D/O.NADAKKAVIL ABOOBACKER HAJI, THOZHUVANOOR AMSOM DESOM, THOZHUVANOOR (PO), VALANCHERY (PO), PIN – 676 552, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN BY ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.N.DEEPA

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

K. HARILAL, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 251 of 2016

¶18

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in

¶21

Execution Petition No.71 of 2014 in Original Suit No.216 of 2011, on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur. The above Execution Petition is filed for realisation of decree amount by arrest and detention of the petitioner in Civil Prison. As per judgment and decree, the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of `51,453/- as cost of the suit to the respondent.

¶22

The case of the respondent/Decree Holder

¶23

is that the petitioner is a registered Pharmacist and he is running a medical shop at Kuttippuram under the name and style “Surath Medical Shop”. Apart from that he assigned 14.17 cents of land with a terrace house as per Document No.2174 of 2014

¶24

C.R.P. No. 251 of 2016

¶25

with an intention to defeat the execution of the

¶26

decree. But, the contention of the petitioner is that he is not running any medical shop and nobody is willing to give him a job due to the influence of the decree holder, who is a Doctor by profession. After considering the rival contentions, the court below arrived at a finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree amount, he has refused to pay the decree amount and if warrant is issued against him for detention in the Civil Prison, he will pay the amount. The legality of this order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶27

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶28

C.R.P. No. 251 of 2016

¶29

Admittedly, the petitioner is a registered Pharmacist. According to him, nobody is willing to give him a job due to the influence of the decree holder. As rightly held by the court below, the said version of the petitioner cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. Being a registered Pharmacist, he will get employment, anywhere in Kerala. That apart, admittedly, he had assigned 14.17 cents of property with a terrace house and the respondent produced certified copy of the said document and the same is marked as Ext.A1. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to show that he spent the money obtained from the sale of the said property. The burden is heavy on him to show that he is not in possession of the said amount. In the absence of any evidence, it can be

¶30

C.R.P. No. 251 of 2016

¶31

reasonably presumed that the petitioner is in

¶32

possession of the amount obtained under Ext.A1 sale.

¶33

In the above view of the matter, the court below is justified in finding that the petitioner has wilfully refused to pay decree amount and if warrant is issued the decree can be executed. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for some time to pay the decree amount.

¶34

Having regard to the said submission, the petitioner is given '45 days' time from today to pay the decree amount. The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in the Execution Petition for a period of 'forty five days' from today. In the event of failure to pay the decree amount, the Execution Court shall proceed in

¶35

C.R.P. No. 251 of 2016

¶36

-: 5 :-

¶37

accordance with law, for the realisation of the

¶38

decree amount.

¶39

This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL,

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

T.K.Suresh v. Safiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Suresh v. Safiya

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

Rajani Mol Vs Ajayan

Lawrence Joseph Vs Francis Joseph

Thankappan Vs Govindan Potti

M.a.Nishad Vs M.a.Habeebulla

K.Jameela Beevi Vs Shijan James

Biju Paul Vs Pathu Aliyar