High Court Kerala High Court

The Catholic Syrian Christian Co. … vs Gangadharan on 17 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
The Catholic Syrian Christian Co. … vs Gangadharan on 17 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 576 of 2004()


1. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CO. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GANGADHARAN S/O. KARAYIL KUNJIKORAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

 Dated :17/07/2007

 O R D E R
                                     P.R.RAMAN J.

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

                             C.R.P.No.576 OF 2004

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

             Dated this the 17th day of July, 2007



                                        O R D E R

This revision is directed against the order dated 3/12/2003 passed in

E.P.No.839/2002 in O.S.No.2814/86 by the Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur. In

execution of the money decree the petitioner herein filed E.P.No.1279/98

before the Munsiff’s Court. In that E.P. the Munsiff’s Court directed the lst

respondent-Gangadharan, who is the respondent in the present E.P., to pay

Rs.2,000/- every month as per order dated 5/10/1999 and in case of default,

to file fresh execution petition. It appears that respondent herein committed

default in making the payment as directed. Therefore, the petitioner filed

E.A.No.1082/00 to continue the execution, though the prayer was for

restoration of the E.P. That was dismissed by the Munsiff’s Court.

Thereafter, the present E.P. was filed. Admittedly, the present E.P is barred

by limitation. A copy of the order in E.P.No.1279/98 was made available

for perusal shows that as noticed earlier, it was closed after directing the

respondent herein to pay the decree amount at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per

month. However, since he committed default, the petitioner had a right to

get the E.P. revived and continue. That E.P. however was dismissed against

-2-

C.R.P.NO.576/2004

which no steps were taken. Admittedly, the present E.P. is barred by

limitation, the correctness of which alone is to be considered in this

revision. Since admittedly the present E.P. is barred by limitation, no

relief can be granted to the petitioner. I do not find any error in

dismissing the present E.P.

C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed.

P.R.RAMAN,

Judge.

kcv.