Disposed

M.T. Abdul Salam v. the State Bank of India

Kerala HC12 Jul 2016CRP/289/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order for detention in civil prison. The High Court granted a four-month installment facility to the judgment debtor instead of upsetting the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given four months to pay the entire decree debt in four equal monthly instalments starting 1st August 2016. Default would lead to coercive steps.

M.T. Abdul Salam Vs the State Bank of India — 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 289 of 2016 ()

¶6

EP NO. 79/2012 IN OS NO. 429/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR :

¶8

M.T. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.M.T.MOOSA MKUSALIYAR, MEDATHIL HOUSE, AKALUR P.O., LAKKIDI PERUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER :

¶11

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, VANIYAMKULAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

K. HARILAL, J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 289 of 2016

¶17

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in E.P.

¶20

No.79 of 2012 in O.S. No.429 of 2010, on the files

¶21

of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam. The above Execution Petition was filed, seeking execution of the decree passed in O.S. No.429 of 2010, under Order XXI, Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison.

¶22

The petitioner entered appearance and

¶23

contended that he has no sufficient means to pay the decree debt.

¶24

The respondent, who is the Decree Holder in

¶25

the Execution Petition has adduced evidence to prove that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the

¶26

decree debt. The Decree Holder was examined as PW1.

¶27

C.R.P. No. 289 of 2016

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

After considering the evidence on record, the court

¶30

below arrived at a finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. Consequently, warrant was issued for detention of the petitioner in the civil prison. The legality of that order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶33

Admittedly, the petitioner is a retired Urudu teacher of B.E.M.U.P. School, Trikkadeeri.

¶34

That apart, the respondent was examined as PW1 and he has spoken to the particulars of the assets and income of the petitioner. Nothing was brought out to discredit this evidence. The court below after

¶35

C.R.P. No. 289 of 2016

¶36

analysing the evidence of PW1, arrived at a finding that he has successfully established the means of the petitioner to pay the decree debt. Then the burden is on the petitioner to prove, otherwise, but he has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his contention. The admitted fact that he is a retired teacher by himself is sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference that he has sufficient money in

¶37

his hand after his retirement, unless he proves otherwise. The petitioner has stayed away from entering the witness box, so as to make him available for cross-examination by the Decree Holder to prove bona fides of the contention. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the above reasonable presumption, the court below is justified in finding that the petitioner has sufficient means

¶38

C.R.P. No. 289 of 2016

¶39

to pay the decree debt. In the above view, I do not

¶40

find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. At last, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for some time to pay the decree debt.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions raised at the Bar, the petitioner is given 'four months' time to pay the entire balance Execution Petition amount provided that he shall pay the entire balance amount by four equal monthly instalments, payable before 10^th day of every month, starting from 1^st August, 2016. In the event of failure to make payment, within the aforesaid time, this instalment facility will stand automatically cancelled and the Execution Court is liable to proceed with the proceedings, so as to realise the entire amount in lump sum, by

¶42

C.R.P. No. 289 of 2016

¶43

-: 5 :-

¶44

taking coercive steps against the petitioner. On compliance with the conditions of the Execution Court shall keep the Execution Petition, in abeyance till the expiry of the time provided for paying the last instalment.

¶45

This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

M.T. Abdul Salam v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T. Abdul Salam v. the State Bank of India

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

The Authorised Officer Vs M.Gopalan

Rajan Vs Laly

M.K.Anandavally Vs K.T.Soman

Vijayakumar Vs Renjith Kumar

Raphel Vs Treesa

Sukumaran Vs Baburaj