Disposed

George v. Rural Kuries (Pvt.) Ltd.

Kerala HC22 Aug 2016CRP/64/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision filed against order requesting arrest under Section 115 CPC in execution proceedings. Court recorded that parties settled the dispute via mediation for `1,20,000/-` which was paid. Court disposed of the revision, recording the settlement and directing the execution court to close the proceedings upon filing an application by parties.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded; Revision disposed of; Execution court directed to record satisfaction and close proceedings on application.

George Vs Rural Kuries (Pvt.) Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 64 of 2016

¶6

ORDER DTD.23.11.2015 IN E.P.22/2015 IN OS.736/2004 OF SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/R3 (3RD DEFENDANT):

¶8

GEORGE, S/O.FRANCIS, THARAKAN HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, KOTTAPPADI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 505. FORMERLY RESIDING AT CHOOLPRAM DESOM, IRINGAPRAM VILLAGE,, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, C/O.ROYAL FOOTWEAR, THRISSUR ROAD, CHAVAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN E.P. (PLAINTIFF) & R2 & 3 (1ST & 2ND ---------------------------------------------------------------DEFENDANTS) :

¶11

-------------

¶12

1. RURAL KURIES (PVT.) LTD., EAST BAZAR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-1.

¶13

2. PAUL,

¶14

S/O.THARAKAN FRANCIS, OWNER OF THARAKAN'S ROYAL JEWELLERY, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THARAKAN VEEDU, 2ND FLOOR, JIMS SQUARE, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018.

¶15

3. ELIZABETH, W/O.THARAKAN PAUL, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THARAKAN VEEDU, 2ND FLOOR, JIMS SQUARE, HAMSAKUNJU LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

========================

¶21

C.R.P No.64 of 2016

¶22

========================== Dated this the 22^nd day of August, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The revision was filed against the order passed by the court below directing arrest of the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶25

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the third judgment debtor in E.P No.22 of 2015 in O.S No.736 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The suit O.S No.736 of 2004 was filed by first respondent herein against the present petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for realization of the amount defaulted by the second respondent herein, for whom the revision petitioner and third respondent stood as guarantors. The suit was decreed. Since the amount was not paid, the first respondent herein filed E.P No.22 of 2015 in O.S No.736 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Chavakkad against all the respondents but particularly seeking execution against the present revision petitioner alone by arrest and detention. Though he had taken up a plea of no means, the court below found that he had means

¶26

C.R.P No.64 of 2016

¶27

Page numbers

¶28

to pay the amount and ordered arrest by the impugned order. That is being challenged by the petitioner by filing the above revision.

¶29

Notice on admission was sent and first respondent

¶30

entered appearance. Respondents 2 and 3 did not enter appearance. Since it is a money dispute, the matter has been referred to mediation as the revision petitioner was prepared to settle the issues with the first respondent kury company. So the matter was referred to mediation and it was settled between the parties in the mediation and the mediation agreement was sent to this Court. As per the mediation agreement, the matter was settled for an amount of 1,20,000/- and the entire amount of 1,20,000/- was paid and the E.P claim was satisfied. It was also agreed between the parties that the first respondent will file an application before the court below for recording full satisfaction and close the E.P. So, in view of the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties, the above settlement is recorded and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

The mediation agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent will form part of this order. If

¶32

C.R.P No.64 of 2016

¶33

Page numbers

¶34

either the petitioner or the first respondent files an application before the execution court for recording full satisfaction on the basis of this agreement, then, the court below is directed to record satisfaction and close the E.P. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest by fax.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

vdv/22/08/16

George v. Rural Kuries (Pvt.) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George v. Rural Kuries (Pvt.) Ltd.

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

Rev. C.Chrispus Vs Rev. M.Robinson

Thachedath Raghavan Vs Thachedath Gopalan

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel Vs Devi Nagar

George Vs Rural Kuries

Thamarath Apputty Vs Payyanakkottummal Ragini

Xavier J. Panjikkaran Vs State of Kerala