Disposed

Unnikrishnan v. Classic Finance

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016OP(C)/838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a review/appeal in an execution proceeding, granting the petitioner six months to pay the decree amount in equal monthly instalments, with the facility automatically cancelled upon default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months time to pay the decree amount in six equal monthly instalments starting from 1st August 2016, conditional upon compliance; facility cancelled automatically on default.

Unnikrishnan Vs Classic Finance — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 838 of 2016 (O)

¶6

OS.NO. 47/2011 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MR.KRISHNAN, PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMAMGALAM, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SAILESH (KECHERY)

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

MANAGING DIRECTOR, CLASSIC FINANCE & KURIS (P) LTD. HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR -01.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

OP(C).No. 838 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 05/1/2011 IN O.S.47 OF 2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE 1ST ADDITONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.
EXT.P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR IN O.S. 47/2011 OF HONOURABLOE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.
EXT.P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22/3/2013 IN O.S. 47/2011 OF HONOURABLE SUB COURT, THRISSUR ISSUED FROM THE LOK ADALAT.
EXT.P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN EP 64/2014 IN O.S.NO.47/2011 DATED 28/1/2014 FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT THRISSUR.
EXT.P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITON IN NO EA.974/2015 DATED 24/7/2015 IN EP 64/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA 974/2015 DATED 12/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE 1 ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.
EXT.P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 47 POSTED TO 19 MARCH 2016 FROM THE HONORUABLE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No. 838 of 2016

¶26

- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of June, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is the 1^st defendant in the

¶29

Original Suit No.47 of 2011 as well as the 1^st Judgment Debtor in Execution Petition No.64 of 2014 filed therein. The suit was one for realisation of money and the same was decreed, as prayed for. The aforesaid Execution Petition was filed for realisation of an amount of `4,47,000/-. The petitioner had prayed for an instalment facility and the same was allowed, directing the petitioner to pay the decree amount by six equal monthly instalments. But, the petitioner failed to pay the instalments, as agreed by him. In the Execution Petition, item Nos.1 and 2 properties were attached and brought for sale. Item No.1 is the property, which was mortgaged by the petitioner and the same is having an extent of 4.5 cents. Item No.2 is having an extent of 18 cents. The Execution Court

¶30

O.P.(C) No. 838 of 2016

¶31

-: 2 :-

¶32

brought both properties for sale and the said order

¶33

was sought to be reviewed in Execution Application No.974 of 2015. After considering the contentions raised in the Review Petition, the court below found that the grounds raised in the Review Petition are

¶34

not sufficient to review the order. It was also observed that item No.1 would fetch at least 54,00,000/- only; where as the decree amount is more than 4,50,00,000/-. Item No.2 would fetch more than `3,00,00,000/-. Therefore, both properties are required to be auctioned to satisfy the decree debt. I do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, dismissing the application, seeking review.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount; but some time is required.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that a reasonable time can be granted. In

¶38

O.P.(C) No. 838 of 2016

¶39

-: 3 :-

¶40

view of the above submissions made at the Bar, the

¶41

petitioner is given 'six months' time to pay the decree amount, by six equal monthly instalments. The petitioner shall pay each instalment in the 1^st week of every month, starting from 1^st August, 2016. In the event of failure to pay any of the instalments, this instalment facility will automatically stand cancelled and the Execution Court shall proceed with the steps to realise the entire amount in lump sum. All further proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, till the expiry of time provided to pay the 6^th instalment, if the petitioner complies the said condition, without default.

¶42

This Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

Unnikrishnan v. Classic Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. Classic Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmipriya Vs Rajeesh L K

K.T.Jaffar Vs M/S.Essen Trading Company

Jose Joseph Vs M/S. Traders Tower Constructions Property Developers Private Limited

Shylaja K. Vs Shanmukhan K.B.

Nisha Rani Vs Prabha

Mr.George Vaidhyan Vs Mr.Koshy Vaidhyan