IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 19828 of 2005(I)
1. A.P. SWAMINATHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN
... Petitioner
2. PHILOMINA FRANCIS, W/O. SWAMINATHAN,
Vs
1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.EASWARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :05/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.19828 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 5th June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The judgment-debtors in a proceeding for execution initiated for
recovery of a sum of Rs.73,837.60 due to the respondent, the L.I.C.
of India under a money decree are the petitioners in this Writ
Petition. The impugned order is Ext.P1 by which the contentions
raised by the petitioners regarding the attachability and saleability of
the properties belonging to the petitioners are repelled. I find that in
Ext.P1 itself the court below has noticed that O.P.No.14214/02 was
filed by the very same petitioners earlier and the same was disposed
of directing the petitioners to deposit the entire balance amount
within 5 months failing which execution proceedings will revive. At
the outset I must say that there is no warrant for correcting Ext.P1 in
the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondent
the stay which was initially granted by this court subject to the
condition that the petitioners pay Rs.25,000/- towards the decree
debt and was extended till 14.12.2005, has not been extended so far.
Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners is not
in a position to inform whether the amount ordered to be paid within
W.P.C.No.19828/05 – 2 –
one month from 1.7.2005 has been paid. But according to me the
above condition was not complied with by the petitioners since it is
the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that recently
the petitioners issued cheque for an amount of Rs.75000/- to the
respondent and that cheque bounced. I find that the petitioner is not
eligible for the reliefs sought for. However on considerations of
indulgence, the impugned order will be kept in abeyance for a period
of six weeks from today. It is open to the petitioners to settle the
dispute with the respondent-Corporation in the meanwhile. If the
issue is not settled within the aforesaid period of six weeks, the
execution court will be justified in taking coercive steps against the
petitioners for compelling recovery.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE