High Court Kerala High Court

Vidhyadharan vs Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd … on 24 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vidhyadharan vs Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd … on 24 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 256 of 2010()



1. VIDHYADHARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD & ORS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/05/2010

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
           ====================================
                     C.R.P. No.256 of 2010
           ====================================
             Dated this the 24th   day of May, 2010


                            O R D E R

Judgment No.3 in E.P. No.22 of 2004 in A.P. No.39 of 1996

before the Arbitrator, A.S.N. Hebbar, Manipal being executed in the

court of First Additional District Court, Kollam is the petitioner

before me. Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 availed loans

from respondent No.1/decree holder with each of them standing

surety to other. There was non-payment of the amount and

consequent to that at the initiative of respondent No.1 a sole

Arbitrator was appointed. He has passed award in favour of

respondent No.1 which is sought to be executed in the court of

learned First Additional District Court, Kollam. Petitioner has a

contention that there was no notice of arbitration proceeding

leading to the award but that is not a matter which the petitioner

could successfully raise in the execution court.

2. Challenge is to the order of learned Additional District

Judge that petitioner has sufficient means to discharge the decree

debt but he has wilfully failed to do so. One contention raised by

C.R.P. No.256 of 2010

-: 2 :-

petitioner is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have sufficient

means are not being proceeded against. That is not a contention

which the execution court can entertain. It is for the respondent

to decide which of the judgment debtors is to be proceeded

against.

3. So far as means of petitioner is concerned, petitioner

gave evidence as D.W.1 while Power of Attorney of respondent

No.1 gave evidence as P.W.1. It is in evidence that petitioner

retired as a Junior Superintendent from the Industrial Training

Department on 27.12.2007 and at that time he received

Rs.1,00,000/- by way of retirement benefits and another sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- as commutation of pension. His annual pension is

Rs.49,296/- as revealed from Ext.B3(a) and he is drawing a

monthly pension of Rs.4,489/- as revealed from Ext.B4. According

to the petitioner his children are studying and he has no sufficient

means to pay the decree amount. There was an earlier Writ

Petition in which petitioner had offered to pay the decree amount

in monthly installments of Rs.1,300/- each. Executing court has

considered the evidence on record and came to the conclusion

C.R.P. No.256 of 2010

-: 3 :-

that petitioner has sufficient means to satisfy the decree debt.

True, burden of proof is on the decree holder. But this Court in

Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) has

stated that it is not as if the decree holder is required to bring in

every details and that if some evidence is produced it is for the

judgment debtor to adduce contra evidence. Having regard to

the evidence on record and circumstances brought out I find no

illegality or manifest injustice in the executing court holding in

favour of respondent No.1 that petitioner has sufficient means to

discharge the decree debt. There is no reason to interfere.

4. Executing court directed detention of petitioner in

civil prison for a period of three months in case the decree debt is

not discharged within five months and first installment is paid on

09.04.2010. Having regard to the circumstances stated and

request made I am inclined to grant the petitioner time to

discharge the decree liability. Petitioner shall discharge the

decree debt in six equal monthly installments beginning from

01.06.2010. In case there is failure to pay any two installments

it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed with the execution

C.R.P. No.256 of 2010

-: 4 :-

or file fresh execution petition before the expiry of the said period

of six months on the strength of the impugned order as if

execution was stayed till then.

Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv