High Court Kerala High Court

Sivasankaran vs Ezhuthachan Kuries (P) Ltd on 3 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sivasankaran vs Ezhuthachan Kuries (P) Ltd on 3 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7257 of 2008(L)


1. SIVASANKARAN, S/O. VADAKKUMURI SANKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAVINDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,

                        Vs



1. EZHUTHACHAN KURIES (P) LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :03/03/2008

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.7257 of 2008
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside

Ext.P4 order and directing the court below to reconsider the

request made in Ext.P2 petition, that is to recall the warrant.

2. The learned counsel submitted before me that the

judgment debtors never wanted to evade payment but they are

only carpenters by profession who are not in a position to pay

the money in lump sum and on the day when the matter was

posted for evidence, unfortunately the counsel was engaged in

another court at Irinjalakuda and there was a request made to

pass over the case. Unfortunately, no time was granted. Then a

petition filed to recall the warrant was also dismissed. If on

account of the absence of the lawyer for few hours, the party has

go to the jail, it may not be proper especially where it is

submitted that the counsel was engaged in another court. The

court has to take into consideration these aspects before

refusing the request to cross examine the witness. Even now,

WPC7257/2008 2

the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that if

breathing time is given they will be able to wipe off the liability

or in other words they wanted instalment facility.

I therefore set aside the order of the court below directing

to permit the judgment debtors counsel to cross examine the

witness of the decree holder and also to produce evidence in

support of their contentions. If it is possible to grant them

instalment facility as contemplated under order 20 Rule 11(2)

with the consent of the decree holder that also may be

considered. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly making

it very clear that the warrant of arrest should not be executed till

a final decision is taken in the matter.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
csl