Dismissed

Boby M Sebastian v. Shine Industries

Kerala HC24 May 2019CRP/368/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala exercised discretionary jurisdiction in a civil revision petition challenging the issuance of a warrant against a judgment debtor. The Court rejected the plea of no sufficient means, noting the High Court's satisfaction based on the decree holder's evidence and the judgment debtor's failure to cross-examine. The revision was dismissed, but the warrant was held in abeyance

What did the court decide?

Warrant issued by the court below kept in abeyance for one month pending deposit of ₹1,00,000/- by the petitioner. Thereafter, the court below shall proceed to execute the warrant.

Boby M Sebastian Vs Shine Industries — 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

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

CRP.No. 368 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP NO.129/2017 IN OS 628/2015 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA DATED 01-04-2019

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶8

BOBY M SEBASTIAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, MANJALY HOUSE, MOOKKANNOOR KARA, MOOKKANOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶10

RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:

¶11

SHINE INDUSTRIES KARUKUTTY KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.O. VARGHESE, S/O. OUSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, MOOKKANNOOR KARA, KOOKKANOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 576.

¶12

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

CRP.No. 368 of 2019

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor against whom E.P.No.129/2017 in O.S.No.628/2015 of Munsiff Court, Aluva was levied for recovery of a sum of 5,52,350/- with future interest.₹ Judgment debtor pleaded no means. On the side of the decree holder, he got himself examined as PW1. Judgment debtor did not adduce any evidence. Thereafter, by the impugned order, warrant was issued. This is under challenge.

¶17

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no material before the court below to hold that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay the decree debt, either in part or in full. It was contended that the court did not pass any speaking order and by a cryptic single line order had ordered warrant.

¶18

3. It seems that the decree holder has specifically referred to the various businesses allegedly carried on by the judgment debtor,

¶19

CRP.No. 368 of 2019

¶20

¶21

properties held by him and the income from those properties. Decree holder mounted the box and

¶22

tendered evidence in support of that. Judgment debtor, apart from denying those averments vaguely did not enter the box to let in contra evidence or to establish that the claim made by

¶23

the decree holder that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay the decree debt was incorrect.

¶24

4. Having considered this, I feel that the finding of the court below that the court has produced the evidence of PW1 and the satisfaction recorded that the judgment debtor had sufficient means does not call for any interference. Though further details are not referred to in the order, the conclusion seems to be supported by the materials on record.

¶25

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. CRP fails and is dismissed. However, warrant issued from the court below will

¶26

CRP.No. 368 of 2019

¶27

¶28

be kept in abeyance for a period of one month on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) within one month. Thereafter, the court below shall proceed to execute the warrant.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶31

Pn 27/05

Boby M Sebastian v. Shine Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boby M Sebastian v. Shine Industries

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

Sarah Varghese Vs M.Abdul Majeed

V.Renuka Vs Anil Kumar

Jesmi Vs Patrick

Shabna.S.S Vs Shamseer Khan

Viswambaran, Vs Shylendranath

Ravi, Vs Ramesh