Sadu @ Ramadevan vs Joshy on 6 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 443 of 2007()


1. SADU @ RAMADEVAN, S/O.PALLATH KUTTAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JOSHY, S/O.PAUL, MULLAKKARA HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.N.MANOJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :06/09/2007

 O R D E R
                           M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                 ------------------------------------------
                       C.R.P.NO.443 OF 2007-A
                 ------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of September,            2007.

                                O R D E R

This C.R.P is preferred against the order of the subordinate

Judge, Irinjalakuda, in E.P.No.456/2004 in O.S.No.357/2003 . The

petition is one for realisation of the amount due under the decree. It

is the case of the decree holder that the judgment debtor is a

goldsmith by profession and he is having a monthly income of

Rs.8,000/= and that he had already availed a loan of Rs.Two lakhs

and possessed a motor bike. The court below found that no

convincing evidence has been adduced to prove the jewelery

business. So far as the vehicle is concerned, the court below held

that it is a hire purchase with the I.C.I.C.I Bank and therefore, the

judgment debtor has no title to the vehicle and further it is held that

it has been sold. Under those circumstances, the court below

dismissed the execution petition. The learned counsel for the

revision petitioner would submit that the approach of the court below

is erroneous and some evidence is adduced before the court to show

that there is means. He would also contend that if an opportunity

is given, he will be able to produce the documents and adduce

C.R.P.No.443/2007. 2

further evidence to prove the means of the judgment debtor.

Considering the said fact, I feel an opportunity can be given to the

decree holder to establish his case.

Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the execution court with a direction to

permit both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their

respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with

law. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on

6.10.2007.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

cl

C.R.P.No.443/2007. 3