High Court Kerala High Court

Shahul Hameed vs Aiswarya Group Of Financers … on 19 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shahul Hameed vs Aiswarya Group Of Financers … on 19 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 396 of 2010()


1. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.PAINATTUPEDIKKAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AISWARYA GROUP OF FINANCERS REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHAIRMAN, DHARMAPALAN, S/O.

3. TREASURER, THULASIDASAN, S/O.CHALLIYIL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :19/10/2010

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

                 ----------------------------------------

                      C.R.P.No.396 of 2010

                  ---------------------------------------

               Dated this 19th day of October, 2010

                               ORDER

Judgment debtor in E.P.No.361 of 2007 of the court of

learned Munsiff, Kodungallur is the petitioner before me

challenging order dated June 16, 2010 issuing warrant of arrest

to the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for

petitioner that the order is bad since there is no finding based on

the evidence let in by the parties that petitioner has means and in

spite of that, has refused or neglected to pay the decree amount.

Learned counsel for respondents contend that petitioner is a

timber merchant and has sufficient means.

2. It is not disputed that both sides have adduced

evidence regarding their respective contentions as to means of

petitioner. But the order under challenge does not reflect the

evidence let in by parties or any consideration given to such

evidence. The order only says that according to the petitioner he

is not in a position to do any work as he suffered injury on his

back bone, he has not filed any medical certificate and hence it is

held that he has means to pay the decree amount. As there is no

consideration of the evidence let in by the parties as regards

C.R.P.No.396 of 2010 : 2 :

means the order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

Resultantly this petition is allowed and the order dated

16-06-2010 in E.P.No.316 of 2009 in O.S.No.361 of 2007 of the

court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur is set aside. The matter is

remitted to the executing court for consideration of the evidence

regarding means. I make it clear that it will be open to the

parties to adduce further evidence if any, in regard to their

respective contentions in the matter.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-