Dismissed

Kunnath Vishwanathan v. Chakkamkunnel Jijo Moncy Jose

Kerala HC10 Feb 2016OP(C)/400/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original civil petition challenging an order dismissing an execution petition for arrest was dismissed. The court held that since the petitioner failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor via evidence, no interference with the executing court's order was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The execution petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor; the petitioner was allowed to file a fresh E.P. if law and limitation permit.

Kunnath Vishwanathan Vs Chakkamkunnel Jijo Moncy Jose — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 400 of 2016 (O) -------------------------E.P NO.11/2012 IN O.S NO.56/1998 OF SUB COURT, HOSDURG

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶7

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

¶8

KUNNATH VISHWANATHAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN, BEEMANADI, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶11

CHAKKAMKUNNEL JIJO MONCY JOSE

¶12

S/O. MANI, RESIDING AT EDATHODU IN PARAPPA VILLAGE P.O.PARAPPA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C).No. 400 of 2016 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 30-9-2000 IN OS NO. 56/1998 OF THE SUB COURT OF HOSDURG.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.11/2012 IN THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE, HOSDURG.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT FILED ON 15-7-2013 IN EP.NO. 11/2012.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30-3-2015 IN EP.NO. 11/2012.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶22

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

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

===================== O.P.(C) No.400 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is the decree holder in O.S No.56 of 1998 of Sub

¶32

Court, Hosdurg. The decree is for payment of money. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 E.P. His only prayer was to arrest the judgment debtor and detain him in civil prison for non-payment of the decree debt. Though the E.P was posted for enquiry, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence. So by Ext.P4 order the executing court found that he has failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor. Accordingly, the E.P also was dismissed. This is challenged.

¶33

Heard.

¶34

When the petitioner failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor by adducing evidence, the court cannot be found fault with for passing the impugned order. As the only relief prayed for in the E.P was arrest and detention of the judgment debtor, the court was justified in dismissing the E.P itself on its

¶35

O.P.(C) No.400/2016

¶36

¶37

finding that the petitioner has failed to prove the means of the judgment debtor to pay the debt. No interference is called for.

¶38

In the result, this original petition is dismissed. If law and

¶39

limitation permits, the petitioner may file fresh E.P.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶42

vdv/10/02/16

Kunnath Vishwanathan v. Chakkamkunnel Jijo Moncy Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnath Vishwanathan v. Chakkamkunnel Jijo Moncy Jose

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

Kolencherry Surendran Vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Abdul Azeez Vs Satheesan Nair

The Mother Superior Vs Rajakkad

Radhika Devi Vs Gomathi Amma

Sreejith.M.P Vs Draupathi.C

Dhanalekshmi Ammal Vs Rajammal