Allowed

T.P.Venugopal v. Mohammed Moideen

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019OP(C)/76/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam permitted the judgment debtor to pay off the decree debt in ten equal monthly instalments. The order allowed this facility after the petitioner complied with a prior interim condition requiring a deposit of Rs.25,000 towards the debt.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to pay off the entire debt due to the respondent in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 25/03/2019.

T.P.Venugopal Vs Mohammed Moideen — 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 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 76 of 2019

¶6

OS 869/2011 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 17-12-2018

¶7

PETITIONER/ PETITIONER / JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶8

T.P.VENUGOPAL AGED 51 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANIYAN NAMBOOTHIRI, GAYATHRI, PUTHAN GRAMAM, KUNISSERY AMSOM, KUNISSERY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 005.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI

¶10

RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT / DECREE HOLDER:

¶11

MOHAMMED MOIDEEN

¶12

S/O. ABOOBAKER, KOTTAKUNNU HOUSE, MANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 642.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

OP(C).No. 76 of 2019

¶17

O.P.(C).No.76 of 2019

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is the judgment debtor in a decree for money. He is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application seeking permission to pay off the decree debt in instalments.

¶20

This Court had, as per order dated 09/01/2019, granted an interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards decree debt. It is reported that the said direction has been complied with. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that a reasonable instalment facility can be accorded to the petitioner.

¶21

In the result, the original petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay off the entire debt due to the respondent decree holder, with interest and costs, in ten equal monthly instalments commencing from 25/03/2019. The subsequent instalements shall be payable on or before the 25^th day of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if there is default in payment of any single instalment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the

¶22

benefit granted under this judgment and in such event, further proceedings in execution can continue.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P 88/17 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 08/06/2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2018 IN E.A 810/2018 IN E.P/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW EVIDENCING PAYMENT DATED 05/10/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW EVIDENCING PAYMENT DATED 23/11/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BEFORE 04/12/201805/10/2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW EVIDENCING PAYMENT DATED 14/12/2018

T.P.Venugopal v. Mohammed Moideen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Venugopal v. Mohammed Moideen

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

Madhavikuty, Vs Ranjith

R.K.Padmanabhan Nambiar, Vs Moosa Haji

Thampi, Vs Jyothi

Sophi, Vs v.P.Selvan

Sophi, Vs v.P.Selvan

Gouri Bijoy Varma Vs Bijoy Varma