E.P.Joseph vs K.N.Neelakantan Namboothiri on 10 August, 2007

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

E.P.Joseph vs K.N.Neelakantan Namboothiri on 10 August, 2007

Bench: M.N.Krishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1038 of 2003()


1. E.P.JOSEPH, ERUPPAKKATTU KARUVANMUZHY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.N.NEELAKANTAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. WILSON P.ANTONY, PAYYAPPILLIL

3. THOMAS JOHN, MALAPRAVANAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :10/08/2007

 O R D E R
                     M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
               -----------------------------
                  C.R.P.Nos.1038,1044 &
                       1045 OF 2003
               -----------------------------
             Dated this the 10th August, 2007.

                         O R D E R

These revision petitions are preferred against the orders of the Additional Subordinate Judges, Kottayam in E.P.214/99. C.R.P.1038/03 is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge's Court closing the evidence. C.R.P.1045/03 is against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge for issuing warrant of arrest against the revision petitioner and C.R.P.1044/03 is preferred against the order rejecting the prayer to review the order passed against arrest. The grievance of the revision petitioner appears to be that he was not given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. The execution petition is one for arrest and detention of the revision petitioner in jail for non-payment of the decree amount. A perusal of the order in C.R.P.1045/03 would reveal that the court receiver who is the decree holder deposed before the court that the revision petitioner was a Secretary of a Co- operative Bank and he has 3 acres of rubber estate and therefore has the means to pay the decree debt. No contra evidence was adduced by the judgment debtor. Since sending a person to jail affects his civil liberty, the court C.R.P.No: 1038/03 etc. 2 should have given an opportunity to examine him and thereafter should have decided the matter in accordance with law. I feel interest of justice demands such an opportunity to be given to the judgment debtor to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. Therefore, all the civil revision petitions are disposed of as follows. Since I am allowing C.R.P.1045/03 the question of review of that order which is under challenge in C.R.P.1044/03 does not loom large. Similarly since opportunity is given to adduce evidence the order closing the evidence also pales to insignificance. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam for fresh consideration of the means of the first judgment debtor, with liberty to adduce both documentary and oral evidence. Needless to say that decree holder also will be at liberty to produce further documents and evidence in support of its contents. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 10.9.2007.

M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court