IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 2753 of 2002()
1. MARTIN, S/O. SOURIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MARY, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. ANTONY, S/O. SOURIAR,
3. THOMAS, S/O. SOURIAR, -DO- -DO-.
4. P.S.VARGHESE,
5. JOSE, S/O. SOURIAR, -DO- -DO-,
6. MICHEAL, S/O. SOURIAR, -DO- -DO-,
7. DEVASSY, S/O. SOURIAR, -DO- -DO-,
8. FRANCIS, -DO- -DO-,
9. JOHNY, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, -DO- -DO-.
10. KUNJUMARY, -DO- HOUSE,
11. KOCHU RANI, D/O. SOURIAR, -DO- HOUSE,
12. ALPHONSA, D/O. SOURIAR, -DO- -DO-,
13. THRESSIA, W/O. SOURIAR, -DO- HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
...................................................................................
C.R.P. No. 2753 OF 2002
...................................................................................
Dated this the 20th February, 2008
O R D E R
The 8th judgment debtor is the revision petitioner. As per the decree, the decree
holder was allowed to realise a sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest from the judgment
debtors. The decree holder filed E.P.No. 391 of 1999 for execution. The revision
petitioner did not file counter. On 20.09.2002, there was no representation for the
revision petitioner before the court below. The court below passed an order to proclaim
and sell the property of the judgment debtors. It is that order which is under challenge
in this Revision.
2. There was an interim direction on 16.12.2002 to deposit a sum of
Rs.15,000/- as a condition for stay for six weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner
is not in a position to say whether the interim order was complied with. Even otherwise,
there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. There is no possible defence which
could be taken to avoid payment of money as per the decree.
The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order
as to costs.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk