Allowed

Ranjith v. Vs Canara Bank, Irikkur Branch

Kerala HC5 Jan 2016OP(C)/18/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Civil Petition challenged an order for the arrest and detention of petitioners as judgment debtors in an execution petition. The High Court held the impugned order was not speaking and directed the Sub Judge to reconsider, analyze evidence, and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside; Sub Judge directed to pass a speaking order discussing evidence within two weeks.

Ranjith v Vs Canara Bank, Irikkur Branch — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 18 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.S 153/2010 OF SUB COURT, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. RANJITH V AGED 39 YEARS

¶10

S/O.GOPALAN, POOVAKKARA MADATHIL P O IRITTY KANNUR 670703

¶11

2. K VIJESH AGED 44 YEARS S/O.A K VALSALAN, SANDHYA NIVAS, VENGADU P O VIA ANJARAKANDY , KANNUR 670703

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶14

CANARA BANK, IRIKKUR BRANCH REP BY ITS MANAGER, IRIKKUR, KANNUR 670703

¶15

BY SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(C).No. 18 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1:SERVED COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION EP 61/2013 IN OS 153/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, KANNUR

¶21

EXT.P2:COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN EP 61/2013

¶22

EXT.P3:COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER IN EP 61/2013

¶23

EXT.P4:COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN EP 61/2013

¶24

EXT.P5:COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE MANAGER OF THE RESPONDENT BANK IN EP 61/13

¶25

EXT.P6:CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 11/8/2015 IN EP 61/2013 IN OS 153/2010 OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, KANNUR

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶27

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

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

¶33

¶34

============================ Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S No.153/2010 in which the respondent Bank has obtained a decree for money against them. The Bank filed E.P No.61/2013 to realize the amount by arrest and detention of the petitioners. After taking evidence regarding the means of the petitioners, the learned Sub judge has passed Ext.P6 order for their arrest and detention. This is challenged.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not a

¶39

speaking order. There is no discussion or analysis of evidence. Even if there is no cross-examination of the witness there should be discussion of the evidence given by the witness. That is absent in this order. So this Court is compelled to direct the learned Sub Judge to reconsider the matter and pass a speaking order.

¶40

O.P.(C) No.18/2016

¶41

¶42

In the result, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. The learned Sub judge is directed to discuss and analyze evidence available in the case and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶44

vdv/05/01/16

Ranjith v. Vs Canara Bank, Irikkur Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith v. Vs Canara Bank, Irikkur Branch

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

Haridas Vs Sajith

Devayani Vs Sarojini

Sreekumar Vs Krishnan Potty

Sajitha Vs Leela

Joseph Vs Gopalakrishnan

Bindu Vs Kamaladevi Kunjamma