Fathia vs Dr.Mohanan on 3 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22388 of 2006(M)


1. FATHIA, AGED 72,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DR.MOHANAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JAGEER AND MOHAMMED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :03/07/2007

 O R D E R
                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                  ..........................................................

                            W.P.(C)No.22388 OF 2006

                 ...........................................................

                       DATED THIS THE 3RD JULY, 2007


                                   J U D G M E N T

This Writ Petition is remaining defective for non-completion of

service of notice on the respondents. The 1st respondent is the

decree-holder before the court below and it is seen that notice to him

is returned stating ‘not known’.

2. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court

noticed that the prayer was that coercive orders issued by the

execution court against the petitioner be kept in abeyance and the

petitioner be permitted to remit the decree-debt in six monthly

instalments. This Court granted stay of the proceedings in execution

only on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire decree-debt

within one month from 23.8.2006. Probably, the petitioner has

complied with the above condition imposed by this Court. At any rate,

I do not find any justification for retaining this Writ Petition on the files

of this Court any longer.

The Writ Petition will stand disposed of issuing the following

directions:-

The execution court will verify whether the petitioner has

liquidated the entire decree-debt within one month from 23.8.2006.

WP(C)N0.22388/06

-2-

If on verification it is seen that the petitioner has deposited or paid at

least 50% of the decree-debt, then the court will hold up coercive

process against the petitioner for a further period of two months from

today. It is open to the petitioner to settle the issue with the 1st

respondent in the meanwhile. At any rate, the order of stay will not

continue beyond the period of two months as indicated above.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.22388/06

-3-