Kodanathu Mubaseer vs The Secretary on 22 December, 2009

0
221
Kerala High Court
Kodanathu Mubaseer vs The Secretary on 22 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 607 of 2009()


1. KODANATHU MUBASEER,AGED 30,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,PARAPPANANGADI CO-OP;
                       ...       Respondent

2. NAMBANKUNNATH HAMZA,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY

3. KODANATHU AYOOB,S/O.MUHAMMED,ULLANAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :22/12/2009

 O R D E R
             S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -------------------------------
           C.R.P.NOS.607 & 608 OF 2009 (C)
                -----------------------------------
      Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009

                          O R D E R

C.R.P.No.607 of 2009 is filed by the 1st respondent in

E.P.No.118 of 2006 in A.R.C.No.1753/04-05 of the Sub Court,

Tirur. C.R.P.No.608 of 2009 is filed by the 1st respondent in

E.P.No.128 of 2006 in A.R.C.No.1754/04-05 on the file of the

Sub Court, Tirur. After considering both the execution

petitions together, as regards the plea of no means canvassed

by the judgment debtors resisting the execution, the execution

court ordered for issuing warrant against them. Propriety and

correctness of that common order issued against them is

challenged by the respective petitioners in their revision

petitions.

2. At the time of admitting the revisions, both of them,

the respective revision petitioners were directed to deposit a

C.R.P.NOS.607 & 608 OF 2009

2

sum of Rs.30,000/- within the time limit fixed towards the

decree debt due. That order has not been complied with.

3. I heard the counsel for the revision petitioners.

Perusing the impugned common order passed by the learned

Sub Judge, I find no reason to interfere with the personal

execution ordered against the revision petitioners directing

the issue of warrant for their arrest and detention in civil

prison to realise the decree debt. The execution court has

found on the materials placed that the petitioners have

sufficient means, but, still they are wilfully avoiding the

discharge of decree debt. Warrant ordered against the

petitioners in such circumstances is proper and correct. Both

revisions lack merit, and hence, dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

prp

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *