High Court Kerala High Court

Thomas vs K.C.Paul on 1 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Thomas vs K.C.Paul on 1 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7324 of 2010(O)


1. THOMAS,THULUVANIKKEL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.C.PAUL, S/O.CHAKKUNNI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.SOJAN JAMES

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :01/10/2010

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

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

                    W.P(C).No.7324 of 2010

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

              Dated this 01sr day of October, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

This petition is in challenge of Ext.P9, order refusing to

issue warrant of arrest to the respondent/judgment debtor.

Petitioner has obtained a decree for payment of money in his

favour and sought personal execution against respondent in

E.P.No.61 of 2008 in O.S.No.108 of 1995 of the court of learned

Sub Judge, Pala. Petitioner gave evidence as PW1 as to the means

of respondent. He stated that respondent owns vehicles, multi

storied building and has business at New Delhi but he was not

able to produce documents in support of that. The executing

court was not inclined to act upon the uncorroborated version of

petitioner as PW1 and rejected prayer for personal execution. It

is contended in this writ petition that order of the executing court

is not sustainable. Learned counsel for respondent states that

there is no evidence to show that respondent has any means.

2. Petitioner has given evidence as PW1 and stated

about assets allegedly belonging to the respondent but he was

not able to produce any document. Executing court was not

impressed by the version of PW1 alone to find means of

W.P(C).No.7324 of 2010 : 2 :

petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am

inclined to give petitioner opportunity to adduce further

evidence. I make it clear that respondent also will get opportunity

to adduce evidence if required.

Resultantly writ petition is allowed in the following lines:

Ext.P9, order is set aside and the matter is

remitted to the executing court for fresh

consideration of the request of petitioner for personal

execution against respondent. Both sides will get

opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of their

respective contentions. Parties shall appear in the

executing court on 30-10-2010.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-