Allowed

Azad K.K v. P.M Thalhath

Kerala HC10 Jan 2019OP(C)/2155/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposition addressed a challenge to an order of arrest and detention of the judgment debtor for execution of a money decree. The High Court affirmed the impugned order but permitted the petitioner to pay the entire debt plus interest and costs in ten equal monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to pay entire decree amount with interest and cost in ten equal monthly instalments; original order affirmed.

Azad K.K Vs P.M Thalhath — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/20TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2018 IN C.C.No.504/2014 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

AZAD K.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.K.KUNJUMON, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.CC 2/794 -, NEAR H.MEHBOOB PARK, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU C.R. SARADAMANI HASEEB HASSAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

P.M THALHATH, S/O.P.P. MOITHUNNI, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.13/184-E, PANAYAPPILLY, KOCHI 682 002.

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The challenge in this original petition is against an order of arrest and detention passed in execution of a decree for money.

¶17

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. Execution was sought for by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. The court below conducted an enquiry into the means of the judgment debtor. The evidence on record consists of the oral evidence of the decree holder as PW1 and of the judgment debtor as RW1.

¶18

3. The decree holder pointed out that the judgment debtor owned an immovable property wherein a residential building is situated and that it was disposed of during the pendency of the suit. The fact that the judgment debtor owned the property and not disputed. The decree holder further stated that the judgment debtor

¶19

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶20

¶21

is presently residing in a rented house, paying a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. He also deposed that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid by the judgment debtor towards the security deposit for the rental arrangement.

¶22

The children of the judgment debtor are studying in private educational institutions by paying high fees. The judgment debtor has business in tourist service; is the case of the decree holder.

¶23

4. PW1 was cross examined at length. The court below noticed that the evidence could not be discredited. Apart from the oral evidence, the judgment debtor produced no material to dislodge the evidence of PW1 regarding the means of the judgment debtor. No documents are produced regarding the sale or lease, though he did not deny the transactions. I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order passed by the court below regarding the means of the

¶24

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶25

¶26

judgment debtor. No material is brought to my notice to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the execution court is perverse.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner/judgment debtor prays that

¶29

reasonable instalment facility may be granted to the judgment debtor to wipe off the entire decree debt. This court had at the time of admission granted an interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards the decree debt. It is reported that the same has been complied with. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that some indulgence can be shown.

¶30

In the result, while affirming the impugned order, the petitioner is permitted to pay off the entire amounts due to the respondent/decree holder with interest and cost, in ten equal monthly instalments

¶31

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶32

¶33

commencing from 5.2.2019. The succeeding instalments shall be payable on or before the 5^th day of every succeeding months. It is made clear that, in case of default in payment of any single instalment, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the benefit of this judgment and further proceedings in execution shall continue.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

O.P.(C)No.2155 of 2018

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10/01/2015 IN CC NO.504/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-V KOCHI.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 12/04/2016 IN E.P. NO 56/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN E.P. NO.56/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.

¶45

EXHIBIT P4

¶46

THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2018 IN E.P.NO.56/2016 IN C.C.NO.504/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.

Azad K.K v. P.M Thalhath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad K.K v. P.M Thalhath

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

Shakeela Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Sabu P.T Vs George Joseph

Pappan Vs Pennamma

G.Bhaskaran Vs B.Sasidharan

Dr.Soja S.L. Vs Renish B.S.

K.P. Varghese, Vs K.P. Mohan