A single judge order in which Justice K. Abraham Mathew disposed of an original civil petition challenging an execution order. The court directed the executing court to pass a speaking order because the impugned order was non-speaking.
Petitioner is disposed of; direction to passing speaking order
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 215 of 2016 (O)
EP.NO.248/2012 IN ARC 484/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERAMBARA.
PETITIONER:
N.R.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NELLIYULLA PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANGAROTH P.O., CHANGAROTH AMSOM, CHANGAROTH DESOM, CHANGAROTH VILLAGE, KOILANDY TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673 525.
BY ADVS.SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.AJU MATHEW SRI.BYJU PUTHIYADATH MEETHAL
RESPONDENT(S):
1. REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.F.1752, PERAMBRA, KOILANDY P.O. CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673 525, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.N.SUDHEESH KUMAR.
2. DINESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, ARIPPILANKANDI HOUSE, CHANGAROTH AMSOM, AVADUKKA DESOM, AVADUKKA P.O., CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673 528.
3. SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KANARAN, MAZHUTHAN KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, CHANGAROTH AMSOM, AVADUKKA DESOM, AVADUKKA P.O., CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673 528.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
OP(C).No. 215 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
=======================
O.P.(C) No.215 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the first respondent in E.P No.248 of 2012 of Munsiff Court, Perambra. Ext.P5 order is challenged. The order is not a speaking order. In these circumstances, it is only proper to direct the executing court to pass a speaking order.
In the result, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Munsiff to pass a speaking order as Ext.P5 order is not worth that name.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE
vdv/21/01/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the execution order is a speaking order as required by law?
N.R.Karunakaran
Regional Co-operative Bank No.F.1752
Dinesh
Shaji
K.Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
