IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 715 of 2006()
1. K.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KADATHILTHAZHE JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE
... Respondent
2. TREASURER K.P.YOUSEF,
For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
C.R.P.No. 715 OF 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision is an order of the Execution
Court directing arrest of the revision petitioner finding that in
spite of sufficient means to pay the decree debt or a substantial
portion of the same, he has willfully neglected to make the
payment.
2. On admitting this revision petition on 18/9/2006, this
court granted interim stay of execution which has been extended
from time to time. On 13/6/2007, this court suo motu
impleaded the Secretary of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund
Trustee Committee as additional third respondent in the CRP and
today we have heard the submissions of Sri.Cibi Thomas,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan,
learned counsel for the additional third respondent and also
Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the decree holder.
CRP.No.716/2006 2
3. Even though Sri.Cibi Thomas addressed us elaborately
and strained very much, having gone through the impugned
order, we do not find any infirmity and much less any
jurisdictional infirmity about the findings entered by the learned
Wakf Tribunal. The revision petitioner is a senor advocate of
Thalassery Bar and his defence to the prayer in the E.P. for
personal execution was that currently he has only a very few
cases and he is getting only a paltry amount. But, then the
means of the revision petitioner to pay the decree debt in a lump
or a substantial portion of the decree debt was sought to be
proved by examining PW1. To the oral evidence adduced by
PW1- the President of the decree holder-Juma Masjid Committee
the revision petitioner did not adduce any counter evidence. In
other words, the revision petitioner did not have the courage to
offer himself for cross examination by the counsel for the decree
holder. According to us, this is a situation which would justify
drawal of adverse interference against the revision petitioner. As
rightly noticed by the Wakf Tribunal, the question as to what is
the monthly income derived by the revision petitioner is an
aspect capable of being proved by documents at the revision
CRP.No.716/2006 3
petitioner’s own disposal. Having not adduced any evidence,
the petitioner is not entitled to blame the court below for having
entered the findings presently entered in the impugned order.
4. Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan submitted that the revision
petitioner is yet to request the Kerala Bar Council for removal of
his name from the Roles of the Bar Council. This means that the
revision petitioner continues to be a practising lawyer. According
to the learned counsel, there is no guarantee that even when the
revision petitioner’s name is removed from the Roles of the Bar
council, he will be eligible for amounts from the Advocates
Welfare Fund since pendency of any disciplinary proceedings
against an advocate can be good reason for denying benefit
from the Trust Fund to him. Whatever that be, as we do not find
any infirmity about the impugned order, we confirm the same
and dismiss the CRP.
5. In view of th statement filed by the Advocate Welfare
Fund Trustee Committee before this court, we direct the
Secretary of the Kerala Advocate Welfare Fund Trustee
Committee not to release amounts, if any, which may be due to
the revision petitioner from the Advocate Welfare Funds without
CRP.No.716/2006 4
obtaining specific orders in that regard either from the Execution
Court or from this court.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk