Disposed

T.Suresh Babu v. P.N.Sivadasan

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016OP(C)/2582/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition challenging an arrest warrant issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding an execution petition. The Court accepted a settlement agreement between the parties and directed the lower court to hold a warrant in abeyance during installment payments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition disposed based on settlement; warrant in abeyance during installment payment; execution to proceed on default.

T.Suresh Babu Vs P.N.Sivadasan — 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

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2582 of 2014 (O)

¶6

--------------------------EP. NO.15/2012 IN O.S. NO.49/2009 OF SUB COURT, PALA.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

T. SURESH BABU, S/O. RAMASWAMY, THAVANAPLAKKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

P.N. SIVADASAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, POLIKAPLACKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-681 006.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

OP(C).No. 2582 of 2014 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

P1 - COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 15/2012 IN OS NO. 49/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALA.

¶19

P2 - COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.08.2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - II, KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶20

P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.02.2014 IN EP NO. 15/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, PALA.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

O.P.(C).No.2582 of 2014

¶27

....................................................... Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the court below ordering arrest under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the respondent herein filed a suit before the Sub Court, Pala for realization of the amount as OS.No.49/2009 said to be due from the petitioner. The suit was decreed. The respondent filed EP.No.15/12 before the Sub Court, Pala evidenced by Ext.P1 for execution of the decree for realisaton of the amount of Rs.7,52,016/-. There was a criminal case initiated against the petitioner by the respondent in respect of the same transaction on the basis of a cheque given by him under section 138 of the N.I. Act as ST.No.228/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. After trial, he was convicted and the matter was taken up to this court and this court as per order in Crl.R.P.No.3547/2009 modified the sentence to one of imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,65,000/- as compensation to the respondent herein with default sentence and that amount was paid and criminal proceedings were closed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally as per Ext.P2 order dated 20.8.2014 (wrongly shown as 30.8.2014 in the statement of

¶31

¶32

O.P.(C).No.2582 of 2014

¶33

facts). According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay any amount as major portion of the amount has been paid. According to the petitioner, the respondent is not entitled to get the amount claimed in the execution petition. He had challenged the amount payable and also the right of the respondent for relief of arrest and detention for realization of that amount. But the court below by Ext.P3 order issued arrest warrant and to take steps to 23.2.2014, that was challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

¶34

During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been referred for mediation and the parties have settled the issue and signed the meditation agreement which was sent to this court. As per the agreement, parties have quantified the amount payable as Rs.1,75,000/- which has to be paid in 10 equal monthy installments commencing from 1.11.2016 payable on the first day of every month from the next working day if the first day of the month happens to be a holiday. The amount will have to be paid directly and memo for recording the payment will have to be filed before court. It is further agreed between the parties that execution petition can be closed on payment of entire amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as agreed between them and in case of default of payment of monthly installments as agreed, the respondent is at liberty for realization of the amount due under the execution proceedings.

¶35

¶36

O.P.(C).No.2582 of 2014

¶37

Heard Sri. Sergi Joseph Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri.S. Manu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Both have agreed that on the basis of the terms of the settlement, the original petition can be disposed of.

¶38

Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement with a rider that in case if the petitioner commits any default in payment of any of the installments, the court below can proceed with the execution from the stage at which the execution proceeding has been stopped. If the payment is properly done, then the court below is directed to keep in abeyance the order of issue of warrant against the petitioner till the amount is paid as agreed in the settlement. The settlement agreement will form part of this judgment. If the entire amount is paid and proof of payment has been recorded of each installment payment on the respective dates, then the court below is directed to close the execution petition recording full satisfaction.

¶39

Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶42

T.Suresh Babu v. P.N.Sivadasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Suresh Babu v. P.N.Sivadasan

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

Minimol Vs K.P. Rajagopal

Devadas Vs Devadas

Valsamma Sebastian Vs Sivadasan

Subhash Mahadev Soorya Vamsi Vs T.P.Simon

Kurian Vs Baby Jose

K.K.Prakasan Vs Sasikumari