IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 501 of 2009()
1. RAMAN PILLAI PRAKASH, LEKSHMI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UMMINIAMMA DEVAKIAMMA, PARAPPADIYIL,
... Respondent
2. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,
3. SREEDHARAN PILLAI MADHUMOHAN PILLAI,
4. SREEDHARAN PILLAI PRASANNAN PILLAI,
5. DEVAKIAMMA SATHEEBHAI AMMA,
6. PRASANNAKUMARIAMMA,
7. SREEDHARAN PILLAI PRASADAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.501 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order passed by the
learned Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta in an
application moved under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of
Civil Procedure by the respondents/decree holders. The
respondents moved the above application alleging that the
decree passed in the above suit, which was one for injunction,
was violated by the petitioner/judgment debtor. The court
below, on the evidence tendered in the application holding
that the judgment debtor has not obeyed the decree, ordered
for issuing warrant to arrest and produce him for the purpose
of committing to prison. Propriety and correctness of that
order is challenged in the revision.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having
regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts
CRP.501/09 2
and circumstances presented with reference to the order
impugned, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary,
and, hence, it is dispensed with. Perusing the order
challenged in the revision, I find it is patently erroneous and
unsustainable under law. The court below has not adverted to
the evidence let in the case nor entered any specific finding in
what manner the petitioner/judgment debtor violated the
decree of injunction. In an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 32
of the Code of Civil Procedure it is incumbent upon the court
to enter a definite finding that the judgment debtor had
violated the decree. It is not sufficient to show that he had not
obeyed the decree. To proceed under the above rule, it must
be satisfactorily established that the judgment debtor flouted
and violated the decree. More than that, it is also seen, under
the impugned order, the learned Munsiff has directed for
issuing warrant to the petitioner directing his production to
commit him to prison without ordering what is the term of
detention. Such orders cannot be passed by a court of law.
The court has to pass orders, if it is satisfied that there is
violation of the decree, as contemplated under Order XXI
CRP.501/09 3
Rule 32 of the CPC. Setting aside the impugned order, I
direct the court below to consider the matter afresh and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law taking note of the
observations made above. The revision is disposed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp