C.B. Singh vs Satheesan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 09, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1354296

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1354296
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jun 09, 2023
Case Number: CRP/98/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.B. Singh

Respondent

Satheesan

Excerpt

.....against the judgment debtor, against which this revision is filed.2. it is an admitted case that the revisionpetitioner/judgment debtor did not mount on the witness box so as to give direct evidence regarding no means or inability to pay the decree amount. on the other hand, it was brought out that he had some immovable properties, which were acquired by the state government. apart from that, no satisfactory evidence was adduced to show the other properties devolved on him on the death of his mother. the case that he did not receive any amount under the land acquisition proceedings and it is pending is not a sufficient ground to hold that he has no-3- means to pay the decree amount. in fact, a compromise decree was passed in which the decree holder asserted that he will pay the decree amount within five months and it would satisfy that he is a person having means to pay the amount. otherwise, there may not be any such clause in thecompromise. at the fag end, it is submitted by the learned counsel that one month's time may be granted to pay the amount due in lump sum. hence, the trial court shall defer the executionproceedings for a period of one month so as to enable the decree holder to pay the decree amount within that time. necessarily, the court below shall not grant any further time for the said purpose and shall be at liberty to proceed with the coercive steps under the execution against thejudgment debtor and it shall be completed within aperiod of two weeks from the date of expiry of one month as ordered above. -4- the original petition will stand disposed of accordingly. sd/- p.somarajan judge uu 09.06.2023 -5- appendix of crp 98/2023 petitioner annexures annexure1 a certified copy of the deposition of the decree holder

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TOS 463/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA EP 11/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT: C.B. SINGH AGED 51 YEARS S/O BALAN, CHOONATTU MANGALAM COMPLEX, MITCHEL JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690101 BY ADVS. GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) MANU SRINATH NIMESH THOMAS RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: SATHEESAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O NANU, SRUTHILAYAM, OLAKKETTIYAMBALAM, MAVELIKARA TALUK, PIN - 690510 BY ADVS. R.REJI M.V.THAMBAN(T-12) THARA THAMBAN(T-209) B.BIPIN(K/297/2007) ARUN BOSE(K/140/2013) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

After conducting an enquiry regarding means to pay the decree amount and compliance of the mandate under Rule 37, a warrant of arrest was issued against the judgment debtor, against which this revision is filed.

2. It is an admitted case that the revision

petitioner/judgment debtor did not mount on the witness box so as to give direct evidence regarding no means or inability to pay the decree amount. On the other hand, it was brought out that he had some immovable properties, which were acquired by the State Government. Apart from that, no satisfactory evidence was adduced to show the other properties devolved on him on the death of his mother. The case that he did not receive any amount under the land acquisition proceedings and it is pending is not a sufficient ground to hold that he has no

-3- means to pay the decree amount. In fact, a compromise decree was passed in which the decree holder asserted that he will pay the decree amount within five months and it would satisfy that he is a person having means to pay the amount. Otherwise, there may not be any such clause in the

compromise.       At the fag end, it is submitted by the
learned       counsel    that   one    month's       time    may     be
granted to pay the amount due in lump sum.                    Hence,
the     trial     court      shall     defer       the      execution

proceedings for a period of one month so as to enable the decree holder to pay the decree amount within that time. Necessarily, the court below shall not grant any further time for the said purpose and shall be at liberty to proceed with the coercive steps under the execution against the

judgment debtor and it shall be completed within a

period of two weeks from the date of expiry of one month as ordered above. -4- The original petition will stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE uu 09.06.2023 -5- APPENDIX OF CRP 98/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE DECREE HOLDER

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties C.B. Singh vs Satheesan Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan