Remanded

N.Thankavelu v. Bharathodayam Kuries Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC9 Jul 2019CRP/287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an arrest warrant order. Held that ownership of property does not automatically establish means to pay debt. Order remanded for fresh evidence on petitioner's means.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23-11-2017 setting aside arrest warrant on grounds of ownership is allowed and matter remanded to court below to examine means of payment after evidence.

N.Thankavelu Vs Bharathodayam Kuries Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRP.No.287 of 2019

¶6

(FROM THE ORDER DATED 23-11-2017 IN EP.NO.718/2011 IN OS 979/2001 of III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR )

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

N.THANKAVELU AGED 74 YEARS S/O. LATE NACHI MUTHU CHETTIYAR , ANGALANIVAS, M.G. ROAD, MARATH LANE, THRSISUR 680 001.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PETITIONER”

¶11

BHARATHODAYAM KURIES PVT LTD THRISSUR 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRP.No.287 of 2019

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the first judgment debtor in OS.No.979/2001 in EP.No.718/2011, in which arrest warrant was sought against the petitioner. Evidence was let in by the decree holder. The court below, holding that the petitioner is the owner of 8½ cents of property, ordered warrant to be issued. This order is under challenge in the present proceedings.

¶18

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above property was sold in execution and purchased by third party evidenced by Annexure-A1 sale certificate dated 9.8.2005. Even otherwise, merely because a person is the owner of item of property, that by itself does not indicate that he has got the means to pay the decree debt. Accordingly, the impugned order is not legally sustainable. However, on the request of the learned counsel for the decree holder, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to let in evidence to establish

¶19

CRP.No.287 of 2019

¶20

¶21

the means of judgment debtor.

¶22

Accordingly, CRP is allowed. Impugned order is

¶23

set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration of the means of the petitioner herein, after giving both sides reasonable opportunity to let in their evidence. The parties shall appear before the court below 26.07.2019.

¶24

CRP is allowed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶27

R.AV

¶28

//True Copy// PS to Judge

CRP.No.287 of 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

ANNEXURE A1

¶34

A TRUE COPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 9.8.2005 ISSUED IN E.P. NO. 742/2003 IN O.S. NO. 58/2002 OF MUNSIFFS COURT THRISSUR.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

N.Thankavelu v. Bharathodayam Kuries Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Thankavelu v. Bharathodayam Kuries Pvt. Ltd.

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

Anjana.C.R Vs Pradeesh Kumar.v.S

Koshy.K.Mathew Vs John Mathew

Rajendran Nair, Vs Ammukutty Amma

P.R.Resmi Vs Adhi Devan

Aadam Vs Nafeesa.R.v

Saranya R.Nair Vs Pradeep P.S.