Revision petition challenging arrest in execution. Court deferred execution proceedings pending disposal of a pending insolvency petition filed by the judgment debtor, setting aside impugned arrest orders.
Execution proceedings deferred till disposal of pending insolvency petition I.P.No.1 of 2016; impugned orders of arrest set aside.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938
CRP.No. 109 of 2016 ()
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.NO. 220/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 23-02-2016)
REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
MUHAMMED ABDUL NOOR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDULLA MUSLIAR, KAMBALA HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM, DESOM AND POST, TIRUR TALUK.
BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.ABDUSSAMAD K.K. SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:
SAHEER AHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, NADAKKAVIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBRAM AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2017, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.110/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
C.RP.Nos.109, 110, 111, 112 & 113 of 2016
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2017
In all these revision petitions, the judgment debtor challenges an order of arrest in execution proceedings. The main contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an insolvency petition before the Sub Court, Tirur as I.P.No.1 of 2016 and the case is pending. The court below, by elaborate orders in execution petitions found that the petitioner is having means to pay the decree debt. It is apparent in this matter that the petitioner did not adduce any contra evidence. The execution court found that he has all the capacity to pay the decree debt. The mode of execution is by arrest. Sufficiency is the matter which depends upon the context of a claim for executing decree.
CRP 109-113/16
-:2:-
I.P.No.1 of 2016. Accordingly, till the disposal of I.P.No.1 of 2016, the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Insolvency petition shall be considered untrammeled by any findings and observations made in the orders of arrest pursuant to the impugned orders. This court is of the view that the impugned orders have to be set aside and to be reconsidered and the execution court has to await the outcome of I.P.No.1 of 2016. It is made clear that the Sub Court shall dispose of I.P.No.1 of 2016 on completing service within six months thereon.
The civil revision petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether execution proceedings for arrest must be deferred due to a pending insolvency petition filed by the judgment debtor.
Muhammed Abdul Noor
Saheer Ahammed
A.Muhamed Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court